LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 

T ., - ■ i \ 

(i)]^iip..iiri.:. 0ii|tt|rig^t '^a. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



f$y 



CopyrighLted by 
LOU/S C. WILSON, 1895. 



4 



i 





<L^ 



(^<^A^ tyo'CiJ^t^tij2^ 




THE 



HISTORY OF SPRINKLING 



BEING A COMPILATION OF THE BEST THOUGHTS OF STANDARD 

AUTHORS, HISTORIANS AND LEXICOGRAPHERS OF 

ANCIENT AND MODERN TIMES, TOGETHER 

WITH REFLECTIONS BY THE 

AUTHOR. 

DESIGNED TO PROVE THAT '^SPRINKLING FOR BAPTISM" IS NOT 

AUTHORIZED BY THE BIBLE, MAKING A VALUABLE 

READY REFERENCE BOOK FOR THE 

YOUNG PREACHER. 



l/C. WILSON, 



AUTHOR OF ''WHAT THINK YOU OF CHRIST," ''BIBLE 
BAPTISM," ETC. 

WITH AN INTRODUCTION 



J. H. PAINTER. 



"The best possible testimony, the acknowledg ment of an adversary." 

— Archibald Travis. 



FIRST EDITION. 



OSKALOOSA, IOWA : 

THE TRACT PUBLISHING CO. 

1895. 



W- 




//^^^a^ 



ill 



DEDICATION. 



TO ALL 



PREACHERS OF THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST, 



WHO LOVE 



"PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY' 



AS PUBLISHED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, AND WHO CONTEND 

EARNESTLY FOR THE COMMANDMENTS AS 

THEY WERE DELIVERED TO THE 



APOSTLES OF JESUS CHRIST, 



THIS WORK IS 



AFFECTIONATELY DEDICATED. 



BY THE AUTHOR. 



PREFACE. 

The following pages contain the testimony of men who have 
been foremost in recording ecclesiastical history, in criticising what 
has been written, and in editing lexicons that give us the meaning 
of words as used by the world's best writers and speakers. If the 
statements submitted by these men concerning the "History of 
Sprinkling" are untrue, then their histories and their dictionaries 
are unreliable, and we are left without the means of proving any- 
thing, either pro or con, on this, or any subject on which they dis- 
course. This, no reasonable person can believe for one moment. 

There are thousands of persons, reasonably well informed on 
many other subjects, who never thought of the importance that at- 
taches to immersion as taught in the New Testament, nor with 
what ^t stands connected. This want of proper information grows 
out of erroneous teaching and a want of careful reading. 

Immersion is called "a Church ordinance," a thing that cannot 
be, since immersion was in practice before the Church was organ- 
ized, and hence could not have been established by the Church. 
Christ never gave the Church power to ordain anything pertaining 
to man's salvation save the appointing of quaUfied men to fill cer- 
tain offices. 

The emblematic grave (immersion) is the womb from which the 
Church was bom. 

Immersion in the New Testament is never associated with 
the Church. It is directly associated with "righteousness," with 
"all authority," with "faith," with "repentance," with "remission of 
sins," with "the name of Christ," with ''the gift ofthe Holy Spirit," 
wth "regeneration," with "the new birth," with "salvation." with 
"the name ofthe Father, Son and Holy Spirit." with "cleansing," 
with "a holy life," with "the death of Christ," and with "the resur- 
rection." To tear it away from these divinely associated objects 
and relate it to the Church only, as an ordinance, is to do violence 
tf the gospel preached by Christ's embassadors. 



We believe that if this little book could fall into the hands of 
every honest doubter on the subject herein treated, it would for- 
ever remove all doubt. The testimony adduced is the best the 
world affords, and it is perfectly overwhelming. 

The unity of all Christians is a consummation devoutly to be 
prayed for. And, when it is remembered that the baptismal ques- 
tion is one of the most serious obstacles in the way of the practical 
unity of Christians, the importance of this humble effort to place 
the matter in its true light, may be appreciated. Many preachers 
must needs expend much money for books, from which to receive 
the information that may be obtained from these pages. In this 
respect the work is unique. 

As the acknowledgment of an adversary is the best possible 
testimony, and we desire to make the case as strong as the strong- 
est, not an immersionist on this side of the Church Fathers has 
been called to testify. Being a history of sprinkling, the reader 
will please remember that the quotations are the most important 
part of this work. We have long thought of preparing such a 
work. No time, pains or means have been spared that was neces- 
sary to make it as complete as possible. If it is not reliable, it is 
because the history of sprinkling, as it comes to us from the schol- 
arship of the world is unreliable. 

If the meaning of the word baptizo is not correctly given, it is 
because the Greeks of all ages have been, and are, mistaken 
about the meaning of the word. A more absurd idea could not be 
invented. If these men are right, Jesus commanded His apostles 
to immerse the penitent believers. If they are wrong, we do not 
know v/hat Jesus commanded; and it would be exceeding difficult 
to prove that He commanded anything. 

It has been the aim of the author, from the beginning, to pre- 
sent the best things, in the best possible way, to enable the reader 
to come to a knowledge of the truth. How far he has succeeded 
others may judge. Helps have not been wanting, and we have 
not been sparing in using them, taking great pains to select the 
very best. 

I extend my unfeigned thanks to J. H. Painter and Dr. 
Christian for valuable assistance rendered me in the preparation 



of this work. I also made free use of the learned work of Dr. 
CONANT, and the Englishman^ s Greek Concordance, I could not 
do better than to call these, and other wise men to my assistance. 
The strength of this little book will be found to lie in its quotations 
rather than in the thoughts of the author. 

These pages are printed from electrotyped plates which are 
owned and controlled by the author. It is my great desire that 
this little book shall do much good. In order that it may preach 
long after my voice is hushed, it is my express will that at my 
decease these plates shall become the property of the Iowa 
Christian Woman's Board of Missions, to be used according 
to the terms expressed in my "last will and testament.'^ 

It this humble effort shall prove a lasting benefit to some one 
who is honestly seeking after truth, the writer will receive large 
pay for all his labor and money expended. No effort has been 
made to be original. The chief idea from the beginning has been 
to be truthful. And as we care not on which side the truth lies, 
and as everything depends on knowing on which side it is, we de- 
mand an impartial investigation, and kindly ask the Pedobaptists 
to show wherein we are wrong. We have made no effort at ele- 
gance of style, choosing rather to clearly and forcibly express 
much in little space. We will not say that the thoughts of the 
writer are expressed in the best possible way. Would that they 
were. 

The honest heart will experience no difficulty in understanding 
us. For such readers only were our labors put forth. 

With these words we send this * ^Booklet" forth on its mission, 
praying that it may be a great disturber of the thoughts of those 
who are practicing the inventions of men. 

L. C. WILSON. 

Oskaloosa^ Iowa* 



< 



GONTRNT8. 



Page 

Preface, ....... iv 

Introduction, ....,, vii 

CHAPTER I. 
Law of Interpretation, . . . , . 1 

CHAPTER II. 
History of Sprinkling, . . . . • 9 

CHAPTER III. 
The Voice of History, . . . • • 15 

CHAPTER IV. 
What the Encyclopaedias Say, ...» 27 

CHAPTER V. 
Testimony of Eminent Pedobaptist Scholars, . . 31 

CHAPTER VI. 
What the Greek Writers Say, . . . • 37 

CHAPTER VII. 
What the Church Fathers Say, . . • • 47 

CHAPTER VIII. 
The Voice of Lexicographers, .... 51 

CHAPTER IX. 
Bible History, ...... 55 

CHAPTER X. 
Why the Word Immerse is Not in the Bible, . . . 77 



Vlll 

CHAPTER XL 

Why Preach One Thing and Practice Another? . 83 

CHAPTER XII. 
A Crumb of Comfort, ..... 91 

CHAPTER XIII. 
What Did Jesus Mean? ..... 93 

CHAPTER XIV. 
Objections Answered, ..... 101 

CHAPTER XV. 
Design of Immersion, ..... 117 

CHAPTER XVI. 
The Exceeding Sinfulness of the Controversy, . * 135 



INTRODUCTION. 

Sprinkling as practiced in these days has no 
foundation whatever in the Bible. Its advo- 
cates have read the Scriptures to little purpose 
when they think their work is upheld therein. 
If what they practice now had been attempted 
when the Scriptures on the subject were being 
written, they would have been put to death for 
daring to treat God's law with so little care, and 
such great disrespect. It is also worthy of re- 
mark that there has never been any change in 
God's law on this question since it was enacted. 
Hence it must be practiced now just as it was 
at first or else it is ^'done away,'' and not to be 
practiced at all. In olden times every detail, 
however small, had to be carefully noticed and 
rigidly kept, else the law of which it was a part 
was not kept. Hence, when the advocates of 
sprinkling now appeal to the Bible, they must 
show that their practice is what is taught there, 
or else their appeal is vain. 

Let us notice a few points of discrepency be- 
tween the sprinkling in these days and that of 
Bible times. 

1. The Material Used. — (a) Blood of a 
heifer; Num. 19:4; (6) Ashes of the same 
heifer, after burning, with ashes also of cedar 
wood, hyssop and scarlet; Num. 19:6. See 



also Heb. 9:13. Water alone was never 
sprinkled on anybody by the command of God 
since the world began. Now, the materials re- 
quired for sprinkling according to Scripture are 
not used by sprinklers today, while the ma- 
terial they do use was never sprinkled on any- 
body in fulfilling the law. Therefore the mod- 
ern practice finds no support in the ancient 
one, which alone was lawful, but the law is 
done away. Let the reader attend a service 
where persons are to be sprinkled ; let him 
open the Bible at Numbers, 19th chapter, and 
read while the performance is going on, and he 
will know positively that the thing he witnesses 
in the service, is not the thing he reads in the 
Bible. And if he should be directed to any 
other portion of the Bible, let him go and read 
during the performance and the result will be 
the same. It is proper to note carefully that 
the ^' water of separation,^' Num. 19:9, and 
'^Clean water,'' Ezek. 36:25, that was to be 
sprinkled, is not the ^^pure water'' of Heb. 
10 :22, with which are '^our bodies washed." 

2. The Design of Modern Sprinkling Dif- 
fers FROM THAT IN THE BiBLE. (a) The first 

thing to be accomplished by sprinkling now is 
baptism. But when Bible sprinkling was es- 
tablished, there was no such thing as baptism 
thought of Nobody was required to be bap- 
tized. The first man ever authorized to bap- 
tize anybody was John the Baptist, and that had 



nothing to do with sprinkling under the old 
law neither one way nor the other, (b) The 
next design of sprinkling now is, that the can- 
didate ^'may be received into the ark of 
Christ's church/' as the M. E. Discipline 
teaches. It is claimed that baptism is the 
door into the visible church and that sprink- 
ling is a mode of baptism ; and therefore they 
sprinkle in order to admit into the church. 
But there was no church of Christ under the 
law, hence no ^^door of the church/' and there- 
fore the sprinkling then was for a very differ- 
ent purpose, namely, for the legal cleansing of 
those who were in any way defiled, (c) The 
last design of modern sprinkling is, to keep an 
'^ordinance of the church," a thing which had 
no existence under the old law where only the 
authority for sprinkling anything upon any- 
body, for any purpose, is found ; and hence 
modern sprinkling has no support in the 
Bible. 

Those who Administer Sprinkling Today 
ARE not the Ones Authorized in the Bible. — 
The law under which sprinkling was practiced 
did not permit any man to take ^'unto himself 
(Heb. 5 :4) the functions of a priest, unless he 
was of the tribe of Levi, and was installed into 
ofhce according to the law of Moses. Not one 
of these things is true of the modern sprink- 
lers ; not one of whom is of the tribe of Levi, 
nor has one of them been installed into author- 



Xll 



ity for performing the work according to the 
law, and therefore every sprinkling performed 
by such men is not valid. If it be suggested 
that there has been a change of the priesthood 
we retort, ^'yes/' and ''also sl change ofthelaw.^' 
Heb. 7:12. Whoever, therefore, appeals to 
the old law (Old Testament) in support of his 
practice ought to appeal to that w^hich exists 
after the change — tJie Gospel, The ''change of 
the law'' w^as as radical as the change of the 
priesthood. ^'Moses spake nothing'' of the new 
priesthood (Heb. 7 :14), therefore no one in the 
oiew priesthood can find authority in the Old 
Testament for sprinkling under the New Tes- 
tament. This being true, the history of sprink- 
ling divides itself naturall}^ into two divisions, 
namely : 1. That required in the law of 
Moses, and, 2. That required in the Gospel of 
Christ. The history of sprinkling under the 
law is a history of loyalty to the law as long as 
it stands. But to continue the sprinkling after 
the law requiring it has ceased to be, is to fur- 
nish a history of disloyalty to God. In har- 
mony with this principle the history of sprink- 
ling under the old law ought to have stopped 
when the old law was "blotted out'' and taken 
away. Col. 2:14; Heb. 10:1-13; 2d Cor. 
3:13-14; Gal. 3:23-25. Therefore, the Jews 
and all others who still adhere to Moses and 
plead the old law in justification of their prac- 
tice, are in rebellion against God. 



Xlll 



As to sprinkling water only, upon any one in 
the new dispensation, the practice was un- 
known in apostolic times. It is not mentioned 
as being practiced by Christians in the New 
Testament, nor in any other book until all the 
apostles of Christ w^ere dead. And yet it has a 
history. A history, however, not connected 
with Primitive Christianity, nor very compli- 
mentary to the Protestant churches that now 
practice it. 

Nothing is clearer in history than the facts 
that baptism was performed for the first four 
centuries (except what is related below) by an 
immersion of the whole body under water, and 
that sprinkling was never suggested as a 
''mode of baptism.^' The history of sprink- 
ling as now practiced begins much later, then, 
than the date of Christianity. 

About the year 251 A. D., Eusebius informs 
us that one Novatian being on a sick bed, de- 
sired to be baptized. But he was thought too 
weak to be taken to the water, and so it was 
arranged to put a great quantity of water upon 
him as he lay upon his bed, as the nearest pos- 
sible approach to baptism under the circum- 
stances. He recovered from his sickness and 
afterwards became a candidate for ordination 
to office in the Church. But he was opposed on 
the ground that he had prostituted the ordi- 
nance of baptism. Others reasoned that he 
did the best he could under the circumstances. 



XIV 

and that his critics ought not, therefore, to be 
so particular. The controversy might have been 
closed by Novatian being baptized as all his 
predecessors in church offices had been, but he 
did not, and hence the controversy went on. 
His example was followed in other places at 
different times, until dissension in the Church 
became widespread. It was not, however, till 
after the rise of poper\% and the power of Ecu- 
menical Councils was well established that 
^'ecclesiastical notice'' was given to these cases 
of ''clynic'' or clandestine baptisms. And at 
the Council of Constans, about 1365 a decree 
was made, legalizing all such cases already past, 
or that might come in the future. Of course it is 
easy to see that once given authority to recede 
from immersion in the direction of convenience, 
it would not be long till sprinkling would be 
the prevailing practice, and it was. But 
Roman CathoIiG authority for ity v:as, and is, the 
highest authority in the world. (See Edinburg 
Encyclopedia, Art. Baptism; Encyclopaedia 
Britannica, Art, Baptism; Bowling's History oi 
Romanism, Robinson's History, et. al. 

J. H. Painter, 



CHAPTER I. 

LAW OF INTERPRETATIOIS^. 

I KNOW of nothing better on this subject, and 
feeling unable to write anything as good as 
the following ^ ^principles of interpretation/' 
bypermission of the author Ipresentthisre-print 
from Dr. T. J. Christian's work on baptism. 
I most cheerfully commend the work to all 
seekers after the truth on this subject. This 
extract is worthy a thoughtful study. 

THE LAW OF BAPTISM, AND THE PRIIN^CIPLES OF 
INTERPRETATION. 

The law of baptism laid down in Matthew 
28:18-20, in the words of our Saviour: ''All 
power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 
Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptiz- 
ing them in the name of the Father, and of 
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; teaching them 
to observe all things whatsoever I have com- 
manded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, 
even unto the end of the world. Amen.'' 

The terms of this commission are plain 
enough. I shall apply some of the principles 
of constitutional and statutory law to the law 
of baptism ; and in it will be found an unan- 
swerable argument in favor of immersion. 
Greenleaf, a very able lawyer, applied the prin- 



2 LAW OF INTERPRETATION. 

ciples of law to the Gospels, and gave to the 
world one of the strongest books on Christian 
Evidence extant ; and I am sure that from the 
same standpoint the argument for immersion 
is impregnable. 

I shall call attention to a few of the funda- 
mental principles of law. 

1. Words are to be used in their primary or 
historical sense, and in the meaning in which 
they can be proven historically to have been 
used. No secondary or figurative sense can be 
applied to them. This is a fundamental rule, 
and is laid down in all of the law books. 

Blackstone, on the interpretation of law, 
says : '^ Words are generally to be understood 
in their usual and most known signification ; 
not so much regarding the propriety of gram- 
mar as their general and popular use.'^ (Com. 
59.) Greenleaf says: '^The terms of every 
written instrument are to be understood in 
their plain, ordinary and popular sense.'' (On 
Evid. 278.) 

This idea is as applicable to theology as it is 
to law. So clear is this that the celebrated 
Presbyterian author. Dr. Charles Hodge, says : 
*^The fundamental interpretation of all writ- 
ings, sacred and profane, is that words are to 
be understood in their historical sense in which 
it can be historically proved that they were 
used by their authors, and intended to be un- 
derstood by those to whom they were addressed. 



LAW OP INTERPRETATION. 3 

The object of language is the communication of 
thought. Unless words are taken in the sense 
in which those who employ them know they 
will be understood^ they will fail of their de- 
sign." (Systemat. TheoL, vol. 1, p. 376.) 

If this rule holds good immersion is inevita- 
bly the act of Christian baptism. Beyond 
doubt the historical sense of the word baptizo 
is to dip. Even if it could be proven, which 
is not the case, that some tropical definition 
favored affusion still, with this rule in sight, 
baptism logically would be performed by im- 
mersion. We have no right to give the word 
an arbitrary meaning. This principle is recog- 
nized in the interpretation of all law ; why not 
in the law of baptism? 

2. We have no right to put any arbitrary 
construction upon, or to draw any strained in- 
ference from, the law of baptism. The New 
Testament is to be construed plainly, and from 
its express commands there can be no de- 
parture. 

Upon no point is the law more explicit than 
upon this. ^'A verbis legis non est recedendum: 
from the words of the law there can be 
no departure. A court of law will not make 
any interpretation contrary to the express let- 
ter of the statute ; for nothing can so well ex- 
plain the meaning of the makers of the act 
as their own direct words.'' (Brown, 622.) 
''When a law is plain and unambiguous, 



4 LAW OF INTERPRETATION. 

whether it be expressed in general or limited 
terms, the legislators should be interpreted to 
mean what they have plainly expressed, and 
consequently no room is left for construction. 
Possible or probable meanings, where one is 
plainly declared in the instrument itself, the 
courts are not at liberty to search for else- 
where.'' * ^ 'That which the words 
declare is the meaning of the instrument, 
neither courts nor legislators have a right to 
add to or take away from its meaning.'' (On 
Constit. Lim. 68, 70.) Mr. Cooly continues: 
''In the case of all written laws it is the intent 
of the law-giver that it is to be enforced. But 
this intent is to be found in the instrument 
itself. It is to be presumed that language has 
been employed with sufficient precision to con- 
vey it, and, unless examination demonstrates 
that the presumption holds good in the parti- 
cular case, nothing will remain except to en- 
force it." (Constit. Lim. 68,) Mr. Marshall, 
Chief Justiceof the United States, said: ^'The 
Government of the United States can claim 
no powers which are not granted to it by the 
constitution ; and the powers actually granted 
must be such as are expressly given, or given 
by necessary implication." (1 Wheat. 326, 
Brown.) ^The intention of the testator ought 
to be the only guide of the court to the inter- 
pretation of his will ; yet it must be his inten- 
tion, as collected by the words employed by 



LAW OF INTERPRETATION. 5 

himself in his will. No surmise or conjecture of 
any object, which the testator may be supposed 
to have had in view, can be allowed to have 
any weight in the construction of his will un- 
less such objects be collected from the plain 
language of the will itself/' (555.) 

These writers all say that from the words of 
the law there must be no departure. Now this 
is perfectly evident. If this commission of 
Christ means immersion, we cannot depart 
from the letter and allow any other act. If it 
were ^'possible'' or ^'even probable'' that sprink- 
ling or pouring was the act of baptism, yet 
they could not be admitted, since immersion is 
the ^'historical or primary'' sense of the word 
haptizo. No room is left for construction, and 
we are to take the Scriptures just as they read. 
We are not to read meanings into the word of 
the living God. 

3. If the commission is not perfectly plain 
and explicit in all of its terms it is of no bind- 
ing force whatever. This the law books plainly 
teach. The maxim is, ubi jus incertwn, uhi 
jus nullum : when the law is uncertain, there is 
no law. The learned Judge Pothier says : ''A 
law that is hopelessly obscure is of no binding 
force, and no person can be held responsible 
for obedience to it." Greenleaf remarks : ''In 
other words, in merely generally speaking, if 
the court, placing itself in the situation in 
which the testator or contracting party stood at 



6 LAW OF INTERPRETATION. 

the time of executing the instrument, and with 
full understanding of the force and import of 
the words, cannot ascertain his meaning and 
intention from the language of the instrument 
thus illustrated, it is a case of incurable and 
hopeless uncertainty, and the instrument is so 
far inoperative and void/' (On Evid. 300.) 

Jesus Christ can claim ilo authority that is 
not expressed in His commands ; and it would 
be a reflection to say that He did not make 
himself perfectly clear. If no man can tell 
what the commission means, or if it means any 
one of a dozen things, then is baptism not 
binding upon us. But such a proposition is at 
once sacrilegious and absurd. 

4. The expression of one thing is the exclu- 
sion of another. If immersion is expressed, 
then is sprinkling and pouring excluded. 
There is ^'one baptism,'' and not three. Coke 
says: ''The appointment or designation of 
one is the exclusion of another ; and that ex- 
pressed makes that which is implied to cease." 
(Coke-Lit. 210.) And Brown says: ''If 
authority is given expressly, though by affirm- 
ative words, upon a defined condition, the ex- 
pression of that condition excludes the doing 
of the act authorized under other circumstances 
than those so defined." (653.) 

Unquestionably the Scriptures teach that 
baptism is by immersion, and aff^usion is thus 
rejected by this law of exclusion. 



LAW OF INTERPRET ATIOl^. 7 

5. It would be of no service to us if Christ 
bad commanded us to be baptized, if we could 
not know what He meant. Mr. Coke says : ^'It 
avails little to know what ought to be done, if 
you do not know how it is to be done.'' 
'^ Where anything/^ says Brown, ^'is com- 
manded, everything by which it is to be ac- 
complished is also commanded.'' (482.) Cer- 
tainly there would be no doubt thrown around 
the last command the Son of God ever gave. 

6. Next to the authority of the New Testa- 
ment, which is paramount, the admissions of 
learned Pedobaptists is the strongest proof we 
can possibly offer. The admission of the ad- 
verse party, when deliberately made, is the 
strongest authority in a court of law. The 
principle is the same whether applied to civil 
or criminal matters. Starkie and Greenleaf 
both put this proposition in the strongest 
terms. Greenleaf says : ^^It is generally 
agreed that deliberate confessions of guilt are 
among the most effectual proofs of the law. 
Their value depends on the supposition that 
they are deliberate and voluntary, and on the 
presumption that a rational being will not 
make admissions prejudicial to his interest 
and safety, unless when urged by the prompt- 
ings of truth and conscience. Such confes- 
sions, so made by a prisoner, at any moment 
of time, and at any place, subsequent to the 
perpetration of crime, and previous to his ex- 



8 LAW OF INTERPRETATION. 

amination before the magistrate, are at com- 
mon law received in evidence as among proof 
of guilt." (OnEvid. 215.) 

There can be but one conclusion in regard to 
the hundreds of Pedobaptist scholars who have 
admitted that baptism was originally by im- 
mersion. The truth forced them to this con- 
clusion. I emphasize this fundamental princi- 
ple of the law of evidence, that the admissions 
of the adverse party, against his interest or 
opinion, is the best of evidence in law, and is 
an estoppel in the controversy, I claim that 
the admissions of the best Pedobaptist scholars 
of this and every other age, forever close out 
affusion as baptism. 

The law requires absolute obedience, and we 
have no right to change or in any wise alter 
its demands. No crime is greater than dis- 
obedience. (Jenks, Cent. Car, 77.) ''Obedi- 
ence is the essence of the law." (11 Coke 
100.) Obedience is the crowning grace of all. 
It is that ''principle, I mean, to which Pol- 
ity owes its stability, Life its happiness, Faith 
its acceptance. Creation its continuance.'^ 
This is the principle that recognizes the well 
nigh forgotten truth that Christ is Lord as 
well as Saviour. It is a far reaching truth, 
and strict obedience to it carries us into the 
immediate presence of God. No more signifi- 
cant words are in the Bible than those of Jesus 
Christ, "Ye are my friends, if ye do whatso- 
ever I have commanded you." 



CHAPTER II. 

HISTORY OF SPRINKLIIS^G. 

BELIEVING there are many persons whose 
attention has never been directed to this sub- 
ject, and who believe that sprinkling a little 
water upon a person will meet the require- 
ments of Christ's baptism, I am impelled from 
a sense of duty to place the' ^Jy26tor7/ of Sprink- 
ling^^ before you in as clear a light as possible. 

I shall use all the helps at my command. I 
shall consult no author who is not standard 
authority. I shall not call upon a single 
immersionist to testify, but shall try the case 
before a court and jury, m.ade up entirely of 
men who practice sprinkling for Christian 
baptism. 

Is there any scriptural authority for sprink- 
ling water upon a person ''in the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Spirit?'^ If so, we shall be glad to find it, and 
to accept it with the whole heart, since it makes 
not one whit's difference to me w^hich is right 
— sprinkling, pouring, or immersion . The ques- 
tion is, which one is Apostolic f If the "history 
of sprinkling'' for baptism, dates back to the 
days of the Apostles, and received tlieir 
approval, then it must be of divine authorit}^ ; 
for they spoke as they were guided by the Holy 
Spirit. If, on the other hand, the Apostles are 



10 HISTORY OF SPRINKLING. 

silent on this subject, it is positive proof that 
they did not do as Jesus told them to, or, that 
Jesus did not communicate any intelligence on 
this subject ; for He enjoined them to teach all 
things that He commanded them. (Matthew 
28:19-20. 

My good friend, you may have been taught 
to believe that sprinkling water is a ^^mode of 
baptism." If so, will you, can you lay aside 
your views and with an unprejudiced mind, 
open to conviction, read with me the 

HISTORY OF SPRINKLING? 

The first witness I shall call will be the 
Edinhurg Encyclopedia: 

The first law for sprinkling was obtained in the following 
manner: Pope Stephen II, being driven from Rome by 
Adolphus, King of Lombards, in 753, fled to Pepin, who, a 
short time before, had usurped the crown of France. 

While lie remained there the Monks of Cressy, inBritany, 
consulted him whether, in case of necessity, baptism poured 
on the head of the infant would be lawful. '^ 

Stephen replied that it would, yet pouring and sprinkling 
was not allowed except in cases of necessity. 

It was not till the year 1311 that the legislature, in a 
council held at Ravenna, declared immersion or sprinkling to 
be indifferent. 

In Scotland, however, sprinkling was never practiced, in 
ordinary cases, till after the Reformation— about the middle 
of the 16th century. 

From Scotland it made its way into England, in the reign 
of Elizabeth, but was not authorized in the Established 
Church. — Ar^. Baptisrn, 

Please bear in mind this permission was 

granted by the Po^pe of Rome , and not by Jesus. 

The Episcopal church, an offshoot from 



HISTORY OF SPRINKLING. 11 

Romanism, began in 1534, The Presbyterian, 
an ofishoot from Episcopacy, began about 1541, 
and the Congregational (independent) church 
soon after. It is a well established historic 
fact, yet a fact kept from the people generally, 
that for about one hundred years, and until the 
Westminster assembly in 1643, these churches 
practiced immersion. 

This Westminster assembly of divines was 
called together by the parliament of England, 
and was composed of '^one hundred and twenty 
reverend gentlemen, ten peers and twenty com- 
moners of illustrious birth, a majority of whom 
were Presbyterians/' 

John Calvin, the father of Presbyterianism, 
had gone over from France to Switzerland, and 
was preaching his new doctrine, viz. : That 
sprinkling a little water on the person was as 
good as immersion ; claiming that ^^the Church 
had a right to change the ordinance to suit 
herself — retaining the substance ; that is, the 
words.'' 

This new doctrine Calvin borrowed from the 
Roman Catholics, from whom he had separated. 

Mary, the bloody queen, succeeded Edward 
VI., and, while on the throne of England, 
Bishop Bonner so cruelly executed her bloody 
decrees that many fled across the channel into 
Europe, and journeyed as far as Switzerland, 
where they fell in with the Reformation, under 
the leadership of John Calvin. 



12 HISTORY OF SPEIXKLIXG. 

In 1558 Elizabeth succeeded Mary. During 
her mild reign many of these exiles returned. 
The Edinhurg Encyclopedia says, substantially : 
In 1559 these, mostly Scottish exiles, having 
renounced the Pope and imbibed the new bap- 
tism of Calvin, returned to their native land, 
with John Knox as their leader, and estab- 
lished sprinkling in Scotland. From Scotland 
it went into England, but was not recognized 
by the Established church for near one 
hundred years. 

" In Scotland and England this new doctrine 
was bitterly opposed by many leading divines, 
and the primitive practice of immersion was 
stoutly contended for. 

'' Seeing how much more convenient it was 
(viz. : sprinkling), the proud, persecuting and 
godless bishops set themselves to have it made 
the law of the land. They preached it before 
parliament, insisting that ^the devil of immer- 
sion ought to be legislated out of the realm, it 
is so troublesome.' '' 

The Westminster assembly convened July 1, 
1643. Very naturally the question was brought 
before this august body of divines, ^' shall we 
continue the practice of immersion, or shall we 
adopt sprinkling instead?'' When it came to a 
vote, twenty- four voted to continue the ancient 
and apostolic practice, and twenty-four voted 
in favor of sprinkling. Dr. Lightfoot was 
chairman, and it was his duty to give the decid- 



HISTORY OF SPRINKLIJSTG. 13 

ing vote. He cast his vote in favor of sprink- 
ling. Edin, Encyc, Vol 3., P. 236. 

This decision was rendered in the latter half 
of 1643, and in 1644 parliament repealed so 
much of the old law as enforced immersion 
and enforced sprinkling in its stead, leaving 
the penalty for its violation stand. Those who 
were not sprinkled were to be treated as outlaws, 
and were deprived of the right of inheritance 
of estates, the right of burial, and, in short, of 
all the rights secured to the sprinkled citizens 
of the realm. 

In the next chapter will be found a copy of 
the law that was enforced by England in the 
good old Colonial days. 



CHAPTER III, 

THE VOICE OF HISTORY. 

Commonwealth of Virginia — Episcopalian. Copy of the law 
found in Henning'g Statutes at large, Yol. 2, page 165, Dec. 
14, 1662, Charles II. 

" Article III. Against persons that refuse to have their 
children baptized: 

"Whereas, Many schismatical persons, out of their 
averseness to the orthodox established religion, or out of the 
new-fangled conceits of their own heretical inventions, refuse 
to have their children baptized. 

"^^ it enacted by the aforesaid authority, That all persons 
that, in contempt of the Divine sacrament of baptism, shall 
refuse, when they may carry their child to a lawful minister 
in that county, to have them baptized, shall be amerced in 
2000 pounds of tobacco — halfe to the informer and halfe to 
the publique." 

AT this time the Church was governed by State 
law. It was the highest conception that a 
majority of the people had of the Church. 
This law was passed to enforce immersion, and 
in about two years the same body passed a law 
to enforce sprinkling instead. 

In 1707 Dr. Gafesaid: ^^ It is notorious to 
everybody that the Divine ordinance, within 
less than a hundred years, has been discarded 
and something totally unlike it has been sub- 
stituted.'^ He further says : '' All men know 
that baptism was used to be administered in 
England by dipping, or immersion, till Queen 
Elizabeth's time (1558), since which time that 
pure, primitive custom has fallen into disuse ; 
and sprinkling, the most opposite to it, has 
taken its place.'' 



16 THE VOICE OF HISTORY. 

Dr. Wall, a Pedobaptist Episcopalian, in his 
history of Infant Baptism — a most learned 
work of four large volumes — says: ''Pouring 
was the substitute for baptism which Calvin 
first adopted, and his sprinkling was only the 
substitute of a substitute, and was the most 
scandalous thing ever adopted for baptism." 

He further says : ^'The Presbyterian church 
in Geneva is the first church on earth, that ever 
enjoined sprinkling.'' 

Sir John Floyer, a physician of eminence, in 
addressing some of the dignitaries of the Epis- 
copal church, says : 

*' T have now given testimony from our 
English authors to prove the practice of immer- 
sion from the time the Britons and Saxons 
were first baptized till King James' day, about 
1600, when the people grew peevish with all 
ancient ceremonies ; and when the love of nov- 
elty, the nicety of parents, and on the pretense 
of modesty, they laid aside immersion.'' The 
Westminster Assembly of Divines, in their com- 
ments on Col. 2:12, ^'Buried with Him by 
Baptism," say : 

*' In this phrase the apostle seems to allude 
to the ancient manner of baptism, which was 
to dip the parties baptized and, as it were, to 
bury them under the water." 

John Wesley says: ^' Mary Welch, aged 11 
days, was baptized according to the custom of 



THE VOICE OF HISTORY. 17 

the first church, and the rules of the Church 
of England, by immersion/' 

Mosheim says in his Church History : ^'Bap- 
tism was performed in the first century by 
immersing the whole body. " 

Robinson's History says : '' The administra- 
tion of baptism by sprinkling was first invented 
in Africa in the third century in favor of clin- 
ics or bedridden people. But even African 
Catholics, the least enlightened and the most 
depraved of all Catholics, derided it and 
reputed it no baptism.'' 

Adam Clark, the celebrated Methodist expos- 
itor in commenting on 1 Cor., 15:29, says: 
^^ As they received baptism as an emblem of 
death in voluntarily going undxr the water, so they 
Fec^i^ed it as an emblem of the resurrection 
into eteriml life in coming up out of the water.'' 

Daniel WkUby, D, D,, b, most learned Church 
of England commentator, says : '^Immersion 
being observed by all Christians for thirteen 
centuries, and approved by our Church." 

Martin Luther ssijs : ^' Those who are bap- 
tized should be deeply immersed." 

John Wesley, founder of Methodism, com- 
menting on Rom. 6 :4, says : '' 'Buried with 
Him,' alluding to the ancient practice of bap- 
tizing by immersion." 

Phillip Doddridge, D. D. , the celebrated Con- 
gregationalist, commenting on the same passage 
says : ''It seems the part of candor to confess 



18 THE VOICE OF HISTORY. 

that here is an allusion to the ancient manner 
of baptizing by immersion. 

Dr. MacKniglit, D,D., and a most learned com- 
mentator and translator, and a Presbyterian, 
says : ^^ Jesus submitted to be baptized — that 
is, buried under the water — by John, and to be 
raised out of it again, as an emblem of His 
future death and resurrection.'' 

John Calvin says: *^ The word baptize sig- 
nifies to immerse, and it is certain that the rite 
of immersion was observed by the ancient 
church. Inst, B, 4 C. 15. 

EiisebmSy the father of Church history, says : 
*^ The first instance on ecclesiastical record of 
pouring or sprinkling is that of Novatian in 
the year 251, which case is thus described by 
Eusebius, the father of Church history : ^^ He 
(Novatian) fell into a grievous distemper, and, 
it being supposed that he would die immedi- 
ately, he received baptism, being besprinkled 
with water on the bed whereon he lay, if that 
can be termed baptism.'' 

Dean Alford (Episcopalian) says : ^' The 
baptism was administered in the daytime by 
immersion of the whole body." Gr. N. T., 
Vol. 1, p. 20. 

Weiss (Lutheran) says : ^' After confessing 
their sins they went down, man by man, into 
the waters of the Jordan, in order to emerge 
new-born, a people prepared for the Lord." Vol. 
1, p. 307. 



THE VOICE OF HISTORY. 19 

Eenan (French infidel) says : ^' That rite was 
baptism, or total immersion/' P. 121. 

Frof. L, L. Lane, D. D. (Oongregationalist), 
speaking in favor of immersion, says : ''As to 
the question of fact, the testimony is ample 
and decisive. No matter of Church history is 
clearer. The evidence is all one way, and all 
church historians of any repute agree in accept- 
ing it. ^ ^ It is a point on which ancient, 
mediaeval and modern historians alike, Catho- 
lic, Protestant, Lutheran and Calvanist have 
no controversy. And the simple reason for this 
unanimity is that the statements of the early 
fathers are so clear, and the light shed upon 
their statements from the early customs of the 
Church is so conclusive, that no historian who 
cares for his reputation would dare to deny it ; 
and no historian who is worthy of the name 
would wish to do so/' 

August 6, 1889, Dr. Trumbidl, editor of the 
Sunday School Times, wrote : ''Most Christian 
scholars of every denomination ^re agreed in 
finding the primitive meaning of the word 
baptize to be 'to dip,' or 'to immerse.'" 

Phillip Schaff, D. D. (Presbyterian), in his 
Church History, Vol. 1, p. 122, says: "The 
usual form of the act was immersion, as is 
plain from the original meaning of the Greek 
baptizein, and haptisma^ 

Neander, in his Planting and Training of the 
Church of Christ, d. 161, says: " The usual 



20 THE VOICE OF HISTORY. 

form of submersion at baptism, practiced by 
the Jews, was passed over to the Gentile 
Christians.'' 

Bishop Smith affirms that '' immersion was 
not only universal six or eight hundred years 
ago, but it was primitive and apostolic, no case 
of baptism standing on record b}^ any other 
mode for the first three hundred years, except 
a few cases of those baptized ^ lying in bed.'' 

J. H. Blount, in his Diet, of Doct, and Hist. 
of Theology, p, 75, says: ''That immersion 
was the ordinary mode of baptism in the prim- 
itive Church is unquestionable." 

Doellinger's (Catholic) Ch, Hist., p. 294, reads : 
''Baptism by immersion continued to be the 
prevailing practice of the Church as late as the 
fourteenth century." 

"It is needless to add that baptism was * * 
administered by immersion, the convert being 
plunged beneath the surface of the water." 
Conybeare and Howson (Episcopal), Life and 
Epistles of St. Paul, Vol. 1, p. 439. 

"The usual mode of performing the cere- 
mony was by immersion." E7ic, Brit,, Vol. 3, 
p. 351. 

" There is no doubt that the usual mode of 
administering baptism was by immersion. * 
An appeal to the numerous authorities by which 
this fact is attested would be superfluous." 
Biddle, Christian Antiquities, p. 502, 

"For the first thirteen centuries the almost 



THE VOICE OF HISTORY. 21 

universal practice of baptism was that of which 
we read in the New Testament, and which is 
the very meaning of the word 'baptize' — that 
those who were baptized were plunged, sub- 
merged , immersed into the water/' Dean Stan- 
ley (Episcopalian), Chris. Ins,, p. 17. 

^^The literal meaning of the Greek word 
baptizein is to plunge, to immerse, to dip. This 
form was practiced in the West until the close 
of the thirteenth century. ^ ^ Baptism by 
immersion has been preserved until the present 
time in the cathedral of Milan. In the six- 
teenth century Edward VI. and Queen Eliza- 
beth were baptized by immersion, and the 
English liturgy of baptism enjoined immersion 
for the public baptism of little children, " Prof. 
Gaston Bonet-Mattry, professor in the Protestant 
Theological Faculty of Paris. 

^^ The meaning of the word baptizein is to dip 
under. The authors of the New Testament 
have never used the word in any other sense." 
Dr, Joseph Langen, Bonn Germany. 

In 1877 I wrote a letter to the professor of 
Greek in Amherst College, to the professor of 
Greek in Williams College, and to the professor 
of Greek in Harvard University, in which I 
asked two questions, viz.: 1. ^'What is the 
meaning of the Greek word baptizo V^ 2. ^'Can 
the Greek word baptizo be properly rendered by 
sprinkle or pour?" 

The professor of Amherst said in his reply : 



22 THE VOICE OF HISTORY. 

'' The Greek word haptizo is a lengthened and 
strengthened form of this root (bap) and prop- 
erly signifies to dip tlioroughly, as in bathing, 
sinking a ship, overwhelmed with calamity/' 

The professor of Williams College said: 
^^ There is no doubt whatever on etymological 
grounds as to the primary significance of the 
root found in bapto and haptizo,'^ He then 
gives a number of examples of their use, and 
adds : '^The sense then originally was that of 
plunging into the depths, and not of sprinkle or 
poiLi\'' [Italics mine.] 

The professor of Harvard said : ^^ I do not 
think the word haptizo ever means to sprinMe or 
to pour.'^ The word haptizo in Greek commonly 
means to dip^ to plunge, to immersey to sinkJ^ 

Prof. Moses Stuart (Congregationalist), says: 
^' Bapto and haptizo mean to dip, plunge or 
immerse into anything liquid. All lexicog- 
raphers and critics of any note are agreed on 
this." 3Iode of Baptism^ p. 51. 

Charles Anthon, LL, D. (Episcopalian), pro- 
fessor of Latin and Greek in Columbia College, 
New York, says : '' The primitive meaning is 
dip> or immerse. Secondary, if it has any, refers 
to the same leading idea. SprinMing is entirely 
out of the question." 

Rev. George Campbell, D. D., president of 
Marischal College, Scotland (Presbyterian), in 
his Preliminary Dissertations to the Gospels, 



THE VOICE OF HISTORY. 23 

declares that the original Greek word meang 
immersej immersion. 

Rev, Thomas Chalmers^ D. i). , chief founder 
of the Presbyterian Free Church of Scotland, 
says in his work on Romans : '^ The original 
meaning of the word baptism is immersion.^^ 

Dr. Augusti (Lutheran), Handbook of Chris- 
tian Archaeology : ''Baptisma denotes plung- 
ing, dipping and the like/' * 

Rt. Rev. Doctor Trenner, Roman Catholic : 
^Tlunged into the water. Baptizo strictly con- 
veys this signification, as all the learned are 
agreed.'' 

Francis P. Kendrick^ Archbishop of Baltimore^ 
Roman Catholic : The primary meaning of 
the term baptize is acknowledged to be dip or 
flunge.^^ 

The Friends, who do not practice baptism, 
may be regarded as perfectly free from bias. 
Let us hear them : 

Barclay says : ' ^ Baptizo signifies immergo; 
that is, to plunge and dip in." 

Dell calls it the ''plunging of a man in cold 
water. " 

Gratton: ^^John did baptize into water ; and 
it was a baptism, a real dipping or plunging 
into water." 

Prof. L. R. Packard of Yale College, New 
Haven, Conn., writes: 

^^Liddell and Scott, American edition, gives 
^pour upon' as one of the meanings of baptizo. 



24 THE VOICE OF HISTORY. 

I do not know how it is with other English- 
Greek Lexicons, except that the last English 
edition of Liddell and Scott omits the above 
definition/' 

Prof. M. L. D'Ooge, Colby University of 
Michigan, writes: 

''There is no standard Greek-English Lexi- 
con that gives either sprinkle or ponr as one of 
the meanings of the Greek verb baptizo,^^ 

Prof. Isaac Flagg, Cornell University of New 
York, writes : 

''I know of no Lexicon which gives the 
meanings you speak of for baptizo (that is, 
sprinkle or pour), not even the Lexicon of the 
Roman and Byzantine periods of Prof. E. A. 
Sophocles.'' 

Prof. Milton W. Humphreys of Vanderbilt 
University of Tennessee, a noted Methodist 
institution of learning, writes : 

''Although some Lexicons give pour or 
sprinkle as meanings of baptizo, there is no 
standard Greek-English Lexicon that does." 

When Prof. M. W. Humphreys left Vander- 
bilt University to become professor of Greek 
in the University of Virginia, H. McDiarmid, 
editor of the Christian Standard, wrote to him 
a letter of inquiry, as to whether there is a 
standard Greek-English Lexicon whi'ch gives 
either sprinkle or p)0UT as one of the meanings 
of the Greek word baptizo. Prof. Humphreys 
answered in these words : 



THE VOICE OF HISTORY. 25 

^^ There is no standard Greek-English Lexi- 
con that gives sprinkle or jpour as meanings of 
baptizo, — The Form of Baptism, p. 43. 

Dr. Kleeburg, a celebrated Jewish rabbi of 
Louisville, Ky., answered certain interrogations 
propounded to him thus : 

1. What does taval mean? It means to 
immerse, to dip. 

2. Does it ever mean to sprinkle or pour? 
It never means to sprinkle or pour. 

3. Did the Hebrews always immerse their 
proselytes? They did. The whole body was 
entirely submerged, 

4. Were the Jewish ablutions immersion? 
Before eating and prayer and after rising in the 
morning they washed ; when they become 
unclean they must immerse. (^Louisville Debate y 
p. 652.) 

Taval is the Hebrew word of which the Greek 
baptizo is a translation. Taval is Hebrew, 
baptize is Greek and immerse is English, and all 
mean the same thing. 

Maimonides, the learned Jew, was born A. 
D. 1131 and died 1204. ^^He is called the Eagle 
of the Doctors of the Lamp of Lsrael. He was 
profoundly versed in the languages and in all 
the learning of the age. He says : 'Every 
person must dip his whole body, and whereso- 
ever in the law washing of the body or gar- 
ments is mentioned, it means nothing less than 
the whole body.'' 



26 THE VOICE OF HISTORY. 

Dr. Hibbardj the well known Methodist 
writer, says : 

^^ Within this climate lies the land of Pales- 
tine. It is such a climate as ^ ^ made the 
practice of bathing common ; and we repeat it, 
it was this universal custom of bathing * ^ 
which more than anything else gave a bias to 
their minds to immersion instead of aflFusion." 
Hibbard on Bap., B. 2, p. 152. 

Not quite right, Doctor. The fact is, there 
is no affusion in baptizo. That's where the bias 
comes in. 



CHAPTER IV. 

WHAT THE ENCYCLOPEDIAS SAY. 

ENCYCLOPEDIA Americana: ^^Baptism— 
that is, dipping, immersion, from the 
Greek word baptizo.'^ 

Edinburg Encyc: ^'In the time of the 
Apostles the act was very simple. The person 
was dipped in water." 

Again : ^*In Scotland sprinkling was never 
used in ordinary cases till after the Reforma- 
tion." 

Brande^s Encyc: ^^ Baptism was originally 
administered by immersion." 

Kitto^s Encyc: ^^ The whole person was 
immersed in water." 

Chambers^ Encyc: ^^It is, however, indis- 
putable that in the primitive church the ordi- 
nary mode of baptism was by immersion, in 
order to which Baptisteries began to be erected 
in the third, perhaps in the second century." 

Encyclopedia Britanica: ^^The usual mode 
of performing the ceremony was by immer- 
sion." 

PorsoTi. (Episcopalian), says : ^' The Baptists 
have the advantage of us; baptizo signifies a 
total immersion." 

Of Porson the Penny Cyclopedia remarks : 



28 WHAT THE ENCYCLOPEDIAS SAY. 

^^One of the profoundest Greek scholars — cer- 
tainly the greatest verbal critic that any age or 
country has produced.'^ 

Edinbitrg Reviewers: ^^They tell me [says 
Carson] that it was unnecessary to bring for- 
ward any of the examples to prove that the 
word signifies to dip ; that I might have com- 
menced with this as a fixed point universally 
admitted,'' 

Poole's Gontinuator: '^ To be baptized is to be 
dipped in water/' 

Smith's Bible Dictionary: ^^By the Greek 
fathers the word haptizein is often used, fre- 
quently figuratively, for to immerse or over- 
whelm with sleep, sorrow, sin, etc. Hence, 
baptisma properly and literally means immer- 
sionJ^ 

London Quarterly Review: ^' There can be 
no question that the original form of baptism 
— the very meaning of the word — was a com- 
plete immersion in the deep baptismal waters, 
and that, for at least four centuries any other 
form was either unknown or else regarded 
as exceptional, almost a monstrous case/' 

Knapp's Theology: ^'Baptisma, from baptizein, 
which properly signifies to dip in, to wash by 
immersion. '^ 

The evidence adduced by them is all one way. 
Several quotations from the encyclopedias will 
be found in the second chapter of this work. 
In fact, there is not one of the great literary 



WHAT THE ENCYCLOPEDIAS SAY, 29 

productions of any age, or from any people, 
that speaks adversely on this subject. 

You may ransack the libraries of the ancient 
and modern world, and not a standard work 
can be found in any language that testifies that 
sprinkling was primitive and apostolic. 

The Edinhurg Encyclopedia says: ^'It is 
impossible to mark the precise period when 
sprinkling was introduced. It is probable, 
however, that it was invented in Africa in the 
second century, in favor of clinics (the sick).'' 

The new Edinhurg Encyclopedia^ edited by 
Sir David Brewster, a Presbyterian, says: 
^'John Calvin was the first man among Prot- 
estants that changed the ordinance of bap- 
tism." 

Such is the testimony of the greatest works, 
by our wisest men. These volumes are accepted 
as standard authority by all scholars of every 
faith. 

What, then, must be the conclusion of the 
unprejudiced mind? 



CHAPTER V. 

TESTIMONY OF CELEBEATED PEDOBAFTIST 
SCHOLAES. 

r\HARLESANTHON, L.L.R (Episcopalian), 
\^^ professor of Latin and Greek in Columbia 
College, New York. The primary mean- 
ing is dip or immerse. Secondary, if it has any, 
refers to the same leading idea. Sprinkling is 
entirely out of the question. 

Rev. George Campbell, D. D., president of 
Marischal College, Scotland (Presbyterian), in 
his Preliminary Dissertations to the Gospels, 
declares that the original Greek words mean 
immerse, immersion. 

Rev. Thomas Chalmers, D D., chief founder 
of the Presbyterian Free Church of Scotland, 
says in his work on Romans • ^'The original 
meaning of the word baptism is immersion. 

Rev. Moses Stuart^ D. D. , professor in And- 
over Theological Seminary (Congregationalist), 
says : '^ Bapto and baptize mean to dij:)^ plunge 
or immerse into any liquid. Mode of Baptism, 
p. 51. 

Dr. Augusti (Lutheran), Handbook of Christian 
Archaeology : "Baptisma denotes plunging, dip- 
ping and the like.'' 

Rt Rev. Dr. Trenan (Roman Catholic) : 
'^ Plunged into the water. Baptizo strictly con- 



32 TESTIMONY OF PEDOBAPTIST SCHOLARS^ 

veys this signification, as all the learned are 
agreed/' 

Martin Luther, founder of the Great Reforma- 
tion : ''Baptism is Greek. In Latin it may 
be translated wimersio, since we may immerse 
anything into water, that the whole may be 
covered with water.'' 

John Calvin, founder of Presbyterianism : 
' ' The very word baptizo, however, signifies to 
immerse." 

DR. SCHAFF, 

an eminent scholar of the German Reformed 
Church, and also a professor in the Union 
Theological Seminary (Presbyterian) and author 
of a work entitled Apostolic Church, thus writes : 

^'As to the outward mode of administering 
baptism, immersion, and not sprinkling, was 
unquestionably the original, normal form." 
Again, he says in the same connection : 

'' Respecting the form of baptism, the impar- 
tial historian is compelled by exegesis and his- 
tory, substantially to yield the point to the 
Baptists." 

This he confesses as a scholar, though wed- 
ded to a human system as a theologian ; for 
which palpable inconsistency he must answer 
to God, as must all other Pedobaptist apolo- 
gists. Concerning infant baptism, which he 
thinks may be sanctioned in the New Testa- 
ment, he thus frankly delivers himself: 



TESTIMONY OF PEDOBAPTIST SCHOLARS. 33 

'' We here encounter not the Baptists, but 
also the authority of many celebrated Pedobaptist 
divines. ^ ^ ^ ^ It is very often asserted, 
indeed, even by the friends of infant baptism, 
that no direct authority for it can be shown in 
the New Testament." — Schaffs Apostolic Churchy 
pp. 568, 670, 571. 

REV. DR. LYMAN COLEMAN, 

professor in Lafayette (Presbyterian) College, 
Easton, Pa., says : 

' ' In the primitive Church, immediately sub- 
sequent to the age of the apostles, immersion 
or dipping was undeniably the common mode 
of baptism.'' The utmost that can be said of 
sprinkling in that early period is, that it was, 
in case of necessity, permitted as an exception 
to a general rule. So well established is this 
fact, that it were needless to adduce authorities 
in proof of it, — Ancient Christianity Exemplified^ 
pp. 395, 396. 

REV. STEPHEN H. TYNG, D. D. , 

rector of St. George's Episcopal Church, New 
York, delivered a lecture some years since on 
Rev. Adoniram Judson, D. D., missionary to 
Burmah, and in speaking of Judson's encour- 
agements, remarked : 

''How must that good man have felt when 
he went down into the river Irawaddy to bap- 
tize his first convert after the apostolic mode." 



34 TESTIMONY OF PEDOBAPTIST SCHOLARS. 
REV. CHARLES HODGE, D. D., 

professor in the Theological Seminary, Prince- 
ton, N. J. : 

^'xVs to the classic vise of baptizOy it means: 
(1) To immerse, or submerge. It is very fre- 
quently used when ships are spoken of as sunk 
or buried in the sea. They are then said to be 
baptized. (2) To overflow or to cover with 
water. The seashore is said to be baptized by 
the rising tide. (3) To wet thoroughly, to 
moisten. (4) To pour upon or drench. (5) 
In any way to be overwhelmed or overpowered. " 
Systematic Theology ^ Part III., p. 527, § 7. 

Rev, John Calvin, the founder of Presbyter- 
ianism, commenting on the baptism of the 
eunuch, says : ' ' Among the ancients, they im- 
mersed the whole body in water. It ia certain 
that immersion was the practice of the ancient 
church.'' 

Rev. Martin Luther, D. D., founder of Luth- 
eranism : ^^ Those who are baptized should be 
deeply immersed.'' 

Protestant Church of Saxony (written by 
Melancthon, 1551): ^^ Baptism is the entire 
action, nsunely the immersion and the pronun- 
ciation of the words, I baptize thee, etc." 

Rev. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, 
commenting on Rom. 6:4, says: ^'Buried 
with him, alluding to the ancient practice of 
baptizing by immersioUo" 



TESTIMONY OF PEDOBAPTIST SCHOLARS. 35 

Rev, Phillip Doddridge, D. D., the celebrated 
Independent^ commenting on the same passage, 
says : '^ It seems the part of candor to confess 
that here is an allusion to the ancient manner 
of baptizing by immersion/' 

Rev, George Whitfield ^ the colleague of 
Wesley, in his sermon on the same text 
remarks : ^ ^ It is certain that there is an allu- 
sion to the manner of baptism, which was by 
immersion. '^ 

Rev. Daniel Whitby j D, D,, a most learned 
Church of England commentator, says : '' Im- 
mersion being observed by all Christians for 
thirteen centuries, and approved by our 
church. '^ 

Bishop Nicholson, of the same church, in his 
Exposition of the Church Catechism, p. 174, 
says : ^^ In baptism while our bodies are under 
the water, we may be said to be buried with Him.'' 

Rev. Adam Clarice, D. D., the celebrated 
Methodist expositor, in commenting on 1 Cor., 
15 :29 : '' As they receive baptism as an emblem 
of death in voluntarily going under the water, so 
they receive it as an emblem of the resurrection 
unto eternal life in coming up out of the 
water.'' ' 

In a letter written to E. Parmly, March 23, 
1843, we find the following : 

'' The primary meaning of baptizo is to dip 
or immerse ; and its secondary meaning, if it 
ever has any, all refer in some way or other to 



36 TESTIMONY OF PEDOBAPTIST SCHOLARS. 

the same leading idea. Sprinkling, etc. , are 
entirely out of the question." — Chas, Antlion. 

I believe that Dr. Anthon was a member of 
the Episcopal Church, and was a proft^ssor in 
Columbia College and a distinguished scholar.'' 

Dr. Doddridge (Congregationalist), a Greek 
scholar who gave us one of the best, if not the 
best, translation of Acts extant, says : "Buried 
with Him in baptism. It seems the part of 
candor to confess that here is an allusion to the 
manner of baptizing by immersion.'' 

Dr, MacKnight (Presbyterian), an eminent 
scholar and translator of the Epistles, says : 
'^Planted together in the likeness of .His death. 
The burying of Christ, and of believers, first 
in the water of baptism and afterwards in the 
earth, is fitly enough compared to the planting 
of seeds in the earth, because the effect in both 
cases is a reviviscence to a state of greater per- 
fection/' 



CHAPTER VI. 

WHAT THE GREEK WRITERS SAY. 

I WILL now call your attention to thirty 
Greek authors, whose writings cover 
a period of many hundred years, but they 
furnish us not one instance where the word 
baptizo is used as meaning sprinkle or pour. It 
would be marvelous indeed, if the word meant 
to sprinkle ; that there is not one such exam- 
ple in all Greek literature. 

In the following examples the translation 
of the word is indicated by small capitals, fol- 
lowed by the word itself in its Anglicized form, 
so that the English reader can judge of its 
meaning as well as the reader of the original 
Greek. 

The examples here given are from every 
period of Greek literature in which the word 
occurs. In giving these examples, I have scru- 
pulously followed Conant's Baptizein, a most 
learned and valuable work that ought to be in 
every preacher's library. 

EXAMPLES. 

PolyhiuSj B. G, 205, History, book /, ch. 51, 6, 
In his account of a sea fight, says : ''And 
embarrassed on account of the weight of the 



38 WHAT THE GREEKS SAY. 

ships and the unskillfulness of the crews, they 
made continued assaults and submerged (bap- 
tized) many of the vessels.'' Plutarch, A. D. 
50, Life of Mar. 

MarcelluSy ch. XV, describing their grappling 
hooks used in naval combats, says: '^ And 
others with iron hands, or beaks like those 
of cranes, hauled up by the prow till they 
were erect on the stern, they submerged 
(baptized). 

Aristotle, B. C. 384, concerning Wonderful 
Reports, 136, speaking of the sea-weeds along 
the southern coast of Spain, says: ''Game 
to a desert place full of rushes and sea-weedS; 
which, when it is ebb-tide, are not immersed 
(baptized), but when it is flood-tide are over- 
whelmed.'' 

Straho, B, 0, 60, Geography, book XII, clu 2, 
4, speaking of the underground channel of the 
river Pyramus, says: '*The water makes so 
much resistance that a dart, hurled from above 
is hardly immersed (baptized). 

Diodorus. B. C. 60, Historical Library, book 
XVI, ch 80. In his account of the defeat of 
the Carthaginian army on the banks of the 
river Grimissus in Sicily, says: *' The river 
rushing down with the current increased in 
violence, submerged (baptized) many.'' 

Josephus, A. D, 37, Jewish Antiquities, book 
XV, ch. 3, 3, describing the drowning of a boy, 



WHAT THE GREEKS SAY. 39 

says: ^^Continually pressing down and im- 
mersing (baptizing) him while swimming/' 

Epictetus^A. D, 50, Moral Discourse {fragment 
XI.) "As you would not wish, sailing in a 
large ship, ^ ^ to be submerged (baptized)/' 

LuciaUj A, D. 135, Timan, or the Man- Hater, 
44, ^To thrust even him headlong, immersing 
(baptizing), so that he should not be able to 
come up again." 

Hippocrates, on Epidemics, booh F, describing 
the breathing of a patient, says: ^^She 
breathed as persons breathe after having been 

IMMERSED (baptized). 

Porphyry, A. D. 233, Concerning the Styx^ 
describing the Lake of Probation in India, 
says : '^ But if guilty, after proceeding a little 
way, he is immersed (baptized) into the head.'' 

Heliodorus JEthiopics, book V, ch. 28, speak- 
ing of a ship in a storm, says : ^'And already 
becoming immersed (baptized). '' 

Heimerius, A. D, 315, Oration X, §, 2, speak- 
ing of the painting of the battle of Marathan, 
says: *'And another immerging (baptizing) 
with his hands the Persian fleet." 

Themistius, about A, D. 430, Oration IV: 
^^ Nor the pilot, whether he saves, * ^ one 
whom it were better to submerge (baptize)." 

Snidas Lexicon: '' Desiring to swim through 
they were immersed (baptized) by their full 
armor." 

Gregory, A. D. 240, Panegyric on Origen, XI V^ 



40 WHAT THE GREEKS SAY. 

describing him as an experienced guide, he 
says : "* Stretching out a hand to save them, 
as if drawing up persons submerged (baptized)." 

Chrysostom, A, D, S/T, Discourse on the Para- 
lytk: *' No, fire applied, nor steel plugged ix 
(baptized), nor flowing blood." 

^ so pic FoJAes, fable of the pack mule : " He 
purposely lowered down and i^imeksed (bap- 
tized) the panniers." 

Achilles Tat ills, A. D. 550, Story of Clitophon 
and Ltucip^t. book III, ch. 1, speaking of a ves- 
sel in a storm, says: ''We shifted our posi- 
tion * * that we might lighten that part 
of the ship that was immerged (baptized)." 

Pindar, B. C. 522, Pythic Odes, II, 79,80: 
Comparing himself to a cork on a fish net, 
says: *'I, asa cork, am ux-dipped (ux-bap- 
tized) in the brine."' 

Archias, Epigram X: ''And fishing rod 
thrice stretched, and cork ux- dipped ( vx-bap- 
tized) in water." 

Ho neric Allegories, ch. 9: "Since the mass 
of iron drawn red hot from the furnace, is 
PLUNGED (baptized) in water.' 

Argentine Expedition, line 512 . But when 
the Titan immersed (baptizedj himself into the 
ocean stream.'' 

Indian, A, D. 625, Ode to Cupid: " I im- 
mersed (baptized) him into wine." 

Libanius, Epistle JiXV, A . Z>. 315: ' * I my- 



WHAT THE GREEKS SAY. 41 

self am one of those submerged (baptized) by 
that great wave/' 

Clement of Alexander^ about A, D, 300, The 
Educator, book II, ch, 2: " But is plugged (bap- 
tized) by drunkenness into sleep.'' 

Justin Martyr, A, D, 150, Dialogue with a 
Jew, 86: ' 'As also us whelmed (baptized) with 
most grevious sins which we have done," 

Plato, B. C. 429, Euthydemus, or the Disputer, 
ch. VII: ' ' Perceiving that the youth was over- 
whelmed (baptized)." 

Theodoret, A. D, 393, Eccles. Hist,, book V, 
ch. 4: ^Treserved the ship of the Church un- 

WHELMED (uIN'-BAPTIZEd)." 

Basil (the Great), Discourse on the Martyr 
Julitta IV: ^'Preserving the soul erect and 

UN- WHELMED (uIN^-BAPTIZEd). " 

Philo. On a Contemplative Life: '' Before 
they are completely overwhelmed (baptized)." 

Are not thirty examples enough? I can 
quote from the book that lies before me, two 
hundred and thirty-six extracts from the most 
eminent Greeks, whose writings cover a period 
of more than sixteen hundred years, and '' in- 
clude all that have been given by lexicograph- 
ers, and by those who have written professedly 
on the subject," and in all the Greek literature 
produced by these learned men, there is not 
one case where the most remote meaning of 
baptizo can be construed to be sprinkle or pour, 
but in every solitary case it is used as meaning 



42 WHAT THE GKEEKS SAY. 

immerse, overwhelm, dip, etc. If the word in 
controversy ever meant to sprinkle, it is 
simply unexplainable that during the lifetime 
of the Greek language not one such use can be 
found. This is so clear and convincing that 
Prof. Stuart says : ^'It is impossible to doubt 
that the words hapto and baptizo have in the 
Greek classical writings the sense of dip, 
plunge, immerse, sink, etc.'' Bap,, j9. 56. 

The following explains itself and is very 
damaging testimony against the cause of him 
who advocates sprinkling : 

Barxes, Kan., July 26, '94. 
Prof, A. Diomedes Kyriasko, Athens, Greece: 

Dear Sir : — In this country we have minis- 
ters who teach that the words bapto, baptizo 
mean to pour and sprinkle as well as immerse. 
Will you be so kind as to answer the following 
questions : 

1. Are you a native Greek? 

2. What is your profession? 

3. Does bapto or baptizo ever mean to pour 
or sprinkle? 

4. Does the preposition ''for" in Acts 2 :38 
mean ''in order to" the remission of sins, or 
" because" sins have been remitted? 

5. Are there any Presbyterians in Greece? 
If so, do they baptize their converts by sprink- 
ling water upon them? 

Please answer these questions and write me 
in English, and say how much I am indebted 



WHAT THE GREEKS SAY. 43 

to you for your service, or what can I render 
you in return? Yours for the truth, 

Eld. T. J. Jackson. 
Athens, Greece, Sept. 13, '94. 
Dear Sir : — I most willingly answer your 
questions. 

1. I am a native of Greece. 

2. A professor of the History of the Church 
at the University at Athens. 

3. Bajotizo as well as 6apto means immer- 
sion, not sprinkling. This latter expression is 
called rantizo in Greek. However, as the re- 
sult of immersion is the cleansing of the im- 
mersed object, the word haptizo^s v/ell as hapto 
has the second derivative meaning. 

4. The preposition ''for '' in Acts 2 :38 does 
not mean '' because'' sins are remitted, but, 
'' in order '' that sins may be remitted. By 
baptism a man becomes a Christian. The 
Spirit of Christ is given to him who thus has 
been received into the Christian Churcli, and 
this Spirit purifies, sanctifies and renews him, 
and it is in this way that his sins are remitted. 

5. There are several Protestant American 
missionaries among us ; two Presbyterians and 
one Baptist. However, the number of Greek 
proselytes is exceedingly small. I happen to 
know that the Baptists immerse proselytes. 

Yours truly, 

A. DiOMEDES KyRIASKO, 

Church Register. 



44 WHAT THE GREEKS SAY. 

From Dr. Christian we clip the following : 

Dr. Diomedes Kyriasko, of the University of 
Athens, Greece, writes to Rev. C. G. Jones, of 
Lynchburg, Va., under date of August, 1890. 
He says : ^' The verb baptizo in the Greek lan- 
guage never has the meaning of to pour or 
to sprinkle, but invariably that of to dip.'' 

Prof. SophodeSj a native Greek, and for 
twenty-eight years a professor of Greek in 
Harvard University, says in his lexicon of the 
Roman and Byzantine period, that it means to 
^^ dip, to immerse, to sink.'' 

The Bishop of Cydades says : ^' The word 
baptize, explained, means a veritable dipping, 
and, in fact, a perfect dipping. An object is 
baptized Avhen it is completely covered. This 
is a proper explanation of the word baptized." 

Alex de Stourdza, Russian State Con^l, says : 
'^The verb baptize, immergo, has in fact but 
one sole acceptance. It signifies, literally and 
always, to plunge. Baptism and immersion 
are, therefore, identical, and to say baptism by 
aspersion (sprinkling) is as if one should say, 
immersion by aspersion, or any other absurdity 
of the same nature." 

Prof. TimayeniSy of the Hellenic Institute, of 
New York, gave a lecture at Chautauqua in 
1881. Speaking of the Greek religion he said : 
'' The Greeks baptize, of course ; they baptize 
in the real way. The Greek word baptizo 
means nothing but immerse in water. Bap- 



WHAT THE GREEKS SAY. 45 

tism means nothing but immerse. In the 
Greek language we have a different word for 
sprinkle. ^ ^ Sprinkle is not what the 
Bible teaches ; this is a fact you may depend 
on.'' 

Prof. N. Bonwetsch, of Dorpat University, 
under date of May 5, 1890, says : ''As far as 
the ceremony of the Greek-Russian Church is 
concerned, immersion is the only method used 
in baptizing.'' 

These, I believe, are all native Greeks of no 
mean ability, and lived in the latter part of 
the nineteenth century. 

Prof. A. T. Fleet, LL. D., for many years 
professor of Greek in the State University of 
Missouri, spent much time in Athens in the 
stud}^ of the Greek language. He says under 
date of January 26, 1891 : '' Socrates and 
Plato, Zenophon and Demosthenes, and even 
Homer himself, might to-day sit at the foot of 
the Acropolis and read the morning paper pub- 
lished in Athens with comparatively little dif- 
ficulty. There has been less change in the 
Greek language within the past 2,300 years 
than in the English within the past 500." 

Prof. Addison Hogue, professor of Greek in 
the University of Mississippi, under date of 
January 21, 1891, makes substantially the 
same statement. 

It is not possible then for these Greeks, emi- 
nent in scholarship, to be mistaken about the 



46 WHAT THE GKEEKS SAY. 

meaning and religious use of as common a 
Greek word as bajotizo, or the other Greek, but 
anglicized word, baptize. Could one of our 
graduates from our high schools be mistaken 
about the meaning of the English words 
immerse, dip, sprinkle or pour? If he would, 
he had better surrender his diploma and carry 
a hod, or play dude. 

Who then can claim for one moment, with- 
out blushing, that the most eminent Greek 
scholars do not know the meaning of so simple 
a Greek word as baptizo f 

If they know the meaning of the word and 
tell the truth when they say it means '' to dip, 
to immerse, to plunge, to overwhelm, to sink, 
to submerge, to cover up, and never did, or 
never can mean to sprinkle, or pour,'' then 
this must be the end of all controversy with 
every honest and fair-minded person who is 
searching after truth as revealed by the Holy 
Spirit. 



CHAPTER VII. 

WHAT THE CHURCH FATHERS SAY. 

THE Church Fathers lived and wrote while 
the Greek was a living language, and 
history furnishes us not one example in 
all their writings where the word baptize is used 
as meaning sprinkle or pour. 

We give a few extracts from their writings. 

Cyrill, Bishop of Jerusalem, Instruction III, 
on Baptism XII, speaking of baptism, says : 
"' Going down into the water, and in a manner 
buried in the water." 

Basil the Great, A. D, 370: ^^The bodies of 
those baptized are as if buried in the water,'' 

Chrisostom, Com. on 1 Cor. : ''Therefore Paul 
calls the IMMERSION the burial, saying: ''We 
were buried, therefore, with Him by the 
immersion into death.' " 

Gregory Discourse XI, on Baptism: " Let 
us, therefore, be buried with Christ by the 
immersion, that we may also rise with Him ; 
let us go down with Him, that we may also be 
exalted with Him , let us come up with Him, 
that we may also be glorified with Him.'' 

John of Damascus, on the Orthodox Faith, 
book IV, ch. 9, on Faith and Baptism. " For 
the immersion shows the Lord's death.'' 



48 WHAT THE CHURCH FATHERS SAY. 

Hippolytits: ^' For thou hast just heard, how 
Jesus came to John and was immersed by him 
in the Jordan/' 

Barnabas y A. D. 119: " We indeed go down 
into the water/' Again : '' Blessed are they 
who, placing their trust in the cross, have 
gone doAvn into the water/' Again: ^^This 
meaneth that we indeed descend into the water 
full of sin and defilement, but come up bearing 
fruit in our heart, having the fear of God and 
trust in Jesus in our spirits." Epis, XI ^ Ante- 
Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, p, 144, 

Justin Martyr, A. D, 139, is the first writer 
who gives a minute account of how baptism 
was performed. In this he says: '^ Then 
they are brought by us where there is water, 
and are regenerated in the same manner in 
which we ourselves were regenerated. For in 
the name of God, the Father, and Lord of the 
Universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and 
of the Holy Spirit, they receive the washing 
with water." 1 Apology, ch. XI, Ante-Nic. 
Fathers, Vol I, p. 183. 

Iranaeus, A. D. 177, speaking of Naaman, 
says : ^^ And dipping himself (saith the Scrip- 
ture) seven times in Jordan." Ante-Nic. Fath., 
Vol. I, p. 574. 

Hermas, A. D. 160: '^ They were obliged to 
ascend through water in order that they might 
be made alive." Ante-Nic. Fath., Vol. II, p. 
49. 



WHAT THE CHURCH FATHERS SAY. 49 

Origen, A. D, 184-254: ^^Man, therefore, 
through this washing is buried with Christ ; is 
regenerated. " Comment on Matt, 

Gregory, A. D, 240: " He who is baptized in 
water is wholly wet. '^ Again : ' ' Immerse me 
in the streams of Jordan, even as she who bore 
me wrapped me in the children's swaddling 
clothes.^' Ante-Nio. Fath., Vol VI, p. 70. 

Chrysostom^, A, D, 347: ^' To be baptized and 
to submerge, then to emerge is a symbol of 
descent to the grave, and of ascent from it." 
Hom. 40 in 1 Cor, , 1, 

Every church, or Apostolic Father might be 
quoted, but it is useless, as there is not one 
dissenting voice. 

The requirements of the Eastern or Greek 
Church, of the Western or Latin Chureh, and 
of the Anglican (English) Church is additional 
testimony along the same line. 

Their rituals all required immersion. One 
extract will suffice to show the practice of the 
Church of England before the Reformation : 
^'Let the presbyter also know, when they 
administer the holy baptism, that they may 
not pour the holy water over the infants' 
heads, but let them always be immersed in the 
font.'' Canon of the Council of Calchuth, A. 
D, 816, ch. 11, 

Let us turn our attention briefly, for want of 
space, to the meaning of the Greek word bap- 
tizo, which means the same as our word bap- 
tize, and learn its meaning. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

THE VOICE OF LEXICOGKAPHERS. 

TESTIMONIALS of the most eminent lexi- 
cographers, or writers of dictionaries of 
the Greek language, none of them Baptist : 

Walderus, a. D. 1537, defines Baptism, I^oiergo, Im- 
merse, 

Stephens, A. D. 1572, defines Immerse^ submerge^ bury in 
water^ wash^ bathe. 

Scapula, A. D. 1579, defines Immerse^ submerge^ bury in 
water^ wash^ bathe. 

George Pasor, A. D. 1637, defines Baptize, merge, bathe, 

J. G. SuiCER, A. D. 1659, defines Immerse, wash. 

SCHREYELIUS, A. D. 1667, defines Baptize, merge, bathe. 

Leusden, a. D. 1671, defines Baptize, merge, bathe. 

Heiderictjs, a. D. 1772, defines Merge, immerse, bury in 
water^ wash, bathe, baptize. 

ScKLEUSNER, A. D. 1791, defines (1) Immerse, dip, plunge 
into water. (2) Wash, bathe, cleanse in water. 

Bretschneider, a. D. 1829, defines Dip or bathe frequently^ 
bathe, wash, im,m,erse, submerge. 

DONi^EGAN, Immerse repeatedly into a liquid, submerge^ soak^ 
saturate, 

Passow, (1) Immerse often, stibmerge, hence, vioisten, wet, 
(2) Draw water. (3) Baptize, wash. 

LiDDELL. & Scott, (1) Dip repeatedly, sink, bathe. (2) 
Draw water. (3) Baptize. 

Greenfield, Immerse, immerge, submerge, sink, wash, 
cleanse, baptize. 

EOBINSON, Immerse, sink, wash, cleanse by washing, zvash 
one^s self, bathe, baptize. 

Liddell & Scotfs Greek-English Lexicon, — 
the Greek Lexicon of the Roman and B^^zan- 
tine Periods (from B. C. 146 to A. D. 1100) by 
E. A. Sophocles, — the Biblico-Theological Lex- 



52 THE VOICE OF LEXICOGRAPHERS. 

icon of the New Testament Greek by Herman 
Cremer, D.D.^ and Thayer's Greek-English Lex- 
icon of the New Testament, — are four of the 
leading Lexicons. What do they say as touch- 
ing the meaning of baptizo f With one voice 
they tell us it means immerse, and not one of 
them so much as hints that it means sprinkle 
or pour. 

In addition to these let me call your atten- 
tion to, and urge you to examine the following 
Greek dictionaries by Pickering, Groves, Robin- 
son, Donnegan, Scapula, Pasor, Robertson, Park- 
hurst, Greenfield, Bagster, Leigh, Richardson, 
Castel, Constantine, Minheri and Dr. Anthon. 
This list might be more than doubled, and 
then it would not embrace a single Lexi- 
con that defines baptizo by sprinkle. Is there 
any weight in the multiplied statements of 
twenty Greek Lexicons? Is one of them mis- 
taken? If so, then are they all wroug, for they 
all ^^speak the same thing on this subject.'' 

And what is more, there is not a standard 
Greek-English Lexicon in existence that gives 
sprinkle or pour as meanings of baptizo. I 
have before me a book, Dr. Conant'sBaptizein, 
which contains every known use of the Greek 
word baptizo, found in Greek literature for 
hundreds of years, and there is not one solitary 
instance of its being used in the sense of 
sprinkle or pour. There is not one such use in 
the entire Bible. There is not one commenta- 



THE VOICE OF LEXICOGRAPHERS. 53 

tor of note who comments on the word as 
meaning sprinkle or pour. There is not one 
translator who renders the word by sprinkle or 
pour. There is not one Lexicographer who 
defines the word by sprinkle or pour. The 
universal testimony of the entire scholarship of 
the world is that it means to dip, to immerse, 
to plunge^ to overwhelm, to cover up, and that 
sprinkle and pour are ^'entirely out of the 
question." 

A proper amount of common sense is a 
good thing to be governed by in religion, as 
well as in secular business. The following 
rule will be accepted as true at first reading : 

''To every word in Scripture there is unques- 
tionably assigned some idea or notion, other- 
wise words are useless and have no more signi- 
fication than the inarticulate sounds of ani- 
mals,'' What idea or thought is intended to 
be conveyed by the word baptizing in the com- 
mission given by the Lord, Matt. 28:19-20? 
Did Jesus employ the word in its ordinary sig- 
nification, or did He attach to it a figurative or 
uncommon meaning? If He used the word 
out of its ordinary meaning, and gave no note 
of explanation, we cannot see how He could be 
understood by those who heard Him. Unless 
a law is understood, it cannot be obeyed. Jesus 
does command us to obey Him. 

Therefore we conclude, as we cannot obey 
what we do not understand, that Jesus used 



54 THE VOICE OF LEXICOGRAPHERS. 

the word baptizing in its ordinary, or current 
acceptation ; if so, He commanded the Apostles 
to immerse the people, for we have shown by a 
multitude of the very best witnesses, whose 
testimony cannot be impeached, that this is 
the meaning of the word used by our Lord. 

It seems like a useless waste of time to push 
this investigation farther. But we shall not 
^^ leave a stone unturned'' in the effort to 
remove every doubt on this subject. We will 
now turn our attention to the Bible History 
and note what we can learn. 



CHAPTER IX. 

BIBLE HISTOKY. 

INthe Old Testament there are only two He- 
brew words which are translated ^'sprinkled'^ 
in our version of the Scripture. One is Zah- 
rah, and the other Nah-zah. Nah-zah occurs 
twenty-four times. 

I have every passage before me where the 
word occurs, and here present them for your 
convenience in this study. 

1. Nah-zah is used of sprinkling blood 
twelve times. 

Lev. 4:6: And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, 
and sprinkle of the blood seven times before the Lord, before 
the vail of the sanctuary. 

17. And the priest shall dip his finger in some of the blood, 
and sprinkle it seven times before the Lord, even before the 
vail. 

Lev. 6:14: And he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and 
sprinkle it with his finger upon the mercy seat eastward; and 
before the mercy seat shall he sprinkle of the blood with his 
finger seven times. . 

15. Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is 
for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do 
with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and 
sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat. 

19. And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his 
finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the un- 
cleanness of the children of Israel. 

Lev. 5:9: And he shall sprinlde of the blood of the sin 
offering upon the side of the altar; and the rest of the blood 
shall be wrung out at the bottom of the alt it is a sin 
offering. 



56 BIBLE HISTORY. 

Lev. 6:27: Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall 
be holy; and when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof 
upon any garment, thou shalt wash that whereon it was 
sprinkled in the holy place. 

Num. 19:4: And Eleazar the priest shall take of her blood 
with his finger, and sprinkle of her blood directly before the 
tabernacle of the congregation seven times. 

2 Kings 9:33: And he said, Throw her down. So they 
threw her down; and some of her blood was sprinkled on the 
wall, and on the horses; and he trod her under foot. 

Isa. 63:3: I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the 
X^eople there loas none with me; for I will tread them in mine 
anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be 
sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment. 

2. It is used of sprinkling blood and oil 
twice, viz. : 

Ex, 29:21: And thou shalt take of the blood that is upon 
the altar, and of the anointing oil, and sprinkle it upon 
Aaron, and upon his garments, and upon his sons, aud upon 
the garments of his sons with him: and he shall be hallowed, 
and his garments, and his sons, and his sons' garments with 
him. 

Lev. 8:30: And Moses took of the anointing oil, and of the 
blood which was upon the altar, and sprinkled it upon Aaron, 
and upon his garments, and upon his sons, and upon his sons' 
garments with him; and sanctified Aaron, and his garments, 
and his sons, and his sons' garments with him. 

3. It is used of sprinkling blood and luater 
mingled twice, viz. : 

Lev. 14:6: As for the living bird, he shall take it, and the 
cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip 
them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was 
killed over the running water: 

7. And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed 
from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean, 
and shall let the living bird loose into the open field. 

5L And he shall take the cedar wood, and the hyssop, and 
the scarlet, and the living bird, and dip them in the blood of 
the slain bird, and in the running water, and sprinkle the 
house seven times. 



BIBLE HISTORY. 57 

4. It is used of sprinkling oil three times, 
viz. : 

Lev. 8:10: And Moses took the anointing oil, and anointed 
the tabernacle and all that was therein, and sanctified them. 

11. And he sprinkled thereof upon the altar seven times, 
and anointed the altar and all his vessels, both the laver and 
his foot, to sanctify them. 

Lev. 14:16: And the priest shall dip his right finger in the 
oil that is in his left hand, and shall sprinkle of the oil with 
his finger seven times before the Lord. 

27. And the priest shall sprin]:ie with his right finrrer 
some of the oil that is in his left hand seven times before the 
Lord. 

5. It is used of sprinkling ashes and ivater 
mingled four times, viz. : 

Num. 8:7: And thus shalt thou do unto them, to cleanse 
them: Sprinkle water of purifying upon them, and let them 
shave all their flesh, and let them wash their clothes, and so 
make themselves clean; 

Num. 19:18: And a clean person shall take hyssop, and 
dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon 
all the vessels, and upon the persons that were there, and 
upon him that touched a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a 
grave: 

19. And the clean person shall sprinkle upon tlie unclean 
on the third day, and on the seventh day: and on the seventh 
day he shall purify himself, and w^ash his clothes, and bathe 
himself in water, and shall be clean at even. 

21. And it shall be a perpetual statute unto them, that 
he that sprinkleth the water of separation shall wash his 
clothes; and he that toucheth the water of separation shall 
be clean until even. 

The other word Zah-raJc, is used thirty-five 
times and is usually translated sprinkle. 

1. It is used of sprinkling hlood twenty-five 
times, viz. : 

Num 19:4: And Eleazer the priest shall take of her blood 
with his finger, and sprinkle of her blood directly before the 
tabernacle of the congregation seven times. 



58 BIBLE HISTORY, 

Ex. 29:16: And thou siialt slay the ram. and thou shalt 
take his blood, and sprinkle it round about upon the altar. 

20. Then thou shalt kill the ram. and take of his blood, 
and put it upon the tip of the right ear of Aaron, and upon 
the tip of the right ear of his sons, and upon the thumb of 
their right hand, and upon the great toe of their right foot, 
and sprinkle the blood upon the altar round about. 

Ex. 24:6: And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in 
basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. 

8. And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the peo- 
ple, and said. Behold the blood of the covenant, which the 
Lord hath made with you concerning all these words. 

Lev. 1:5: And he shall kill the bullock before the Lord: 
and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood, and 
sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the 
door of the tabernacle of the congregation. 

11. And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward 
before the Lord: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall sprinkle 
his blood round about upon the altar. 

Lev. 3:2: And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his 
offering, and kill it at the door of the tabernacle of the con- 
gregation: and Aaron's sons the priests shall sprinkle the 
blood upon the altar round about. 

8. And he, shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, 
and kill it before the tabernacle of the congregation: and 
Aaron's sons shall sprinkle the blood thereof round about 
upon the altar. 

13. And he shall lay his hand upon the head of it, and kill 
it before the tabernacle of the congregation: and the sons of 
Aaron shall sx)rinkle the blood thereof upon the altar round 
about. 

Lev. 8:19: And he killed it; and Moses sprinkled the blood 
upon the altar round about. 

24. And he brought Aaran's sons, and Moses put of the 
blood upon the tip of their right ear. and upon the thumbs of 
th' ir right hands, and upon the great toes of their right feet, 
and Moses sxjrinkled the blood upon the altar round about. 

Lev. 17:6: And the priest shaU sprinkle the blood upon 
the altar of the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the con- 
gregation, and burn the fat for a sweet savour unto the Lord. 

2 Kings 16:13: And he burnt his burnt offering and his 
meat offering, and poured his drink offering, and sprinkled 
the blood of his peace offerings, upon the altar. 



BIBLE HISTORY. 59 

15, And King Ahaz commanded Urijali tlie priest, saying, 
Upon tlie great altar burn the morning burnt offering!^ and 
tiie evening meat offering, and tlie king-s burnt sacrifice, and 
Ms meat offering, with the burnt offering of all the people of 
the landj and their meat offering, and their drink offerings; 
and sprinkle upon it all the blood of the burnt offering, and 
all of the blood of the sacrifice: and the brazen altar shall be 
for me to enquire hy. 

Lev. 7:2; In the place where they kill the burnt offering 
shall they kill the trespass offering and the blood thereof shall 
he sprinkle round about upon the altar, 

14. And of it he shall offer one out of the whole oblation 
for an heave offering unto the Lord, and it shall be the 
priest's that sprinkleth the blood of the peace offering. 

Lev, 9:12. And he slew the burnt offering; and Aaron's 
sons presented unto him the blood, which he sprinkled round 
about upon the altar. 

18. He slew also the bullock and the ram for a sacrifice 
of peace offerings, which teas for the people: and Aaron's sons 
presented unto him the blood, which he sprinkled ui^on the 
altar round about^ 

2 Chron. 29:22: So they killed the bullocks, and the priests 
received the blood, and sprinkled it on the altar: likewise 
when they had killed the rams, they sprinkled the blood upon 
the altar: they killed also the lambs, and they sprinkled the 
blood upon the altar. 

2 Chron. 30:16: And they stood in their place after their 
manner, according to the law of Moses the man of God: the 
priests sprinkled the blood, which they received of the hand of 
the Levites. 

2 Chron. 35:11: And they killed the passover, and the 
priests sprinkled the blood from their hands, and the Levites 
flayed them. 

2. It is used of sprinkling ashes and water 

mingled twice, viz. : 

Num. 19:13: Whosoever toucheth the dead body of any 
man that is dead, and purifieth not himself, defileth the tab- 
ernacle of the Lord: and that soul shall be cut off* from Jsrael; 
because the water of separation was not sprinkled upon him, 
he shall be unclean: his uncleanness is yet upon him. 

20. But the man that shall be unclean, and vshail not pur- 
ify himself, that soul shall be cut off from among tlie congre- 
gation, because he hath defiled the sanctuary of the Lord: 



60 BIBLE HISTORY. 

the water of separation hatli not been sprinkled upon him, he 
is unclean. 

3. It is used of scattering small solid sub- 
stances seven times, viz. : 

2 Chron. 34:4: And they brake down the altars of Baalim 
in his presence; and tlie images, that tce^^e on high above ihem, 
he cut down; and the groves, and the carved images, and the 
molten images, he brake in pieces, and made dust of theui, and. 
strowed it upon the graves of them that had sacrificed unto 
them. 

Job. 2.12: And when they lifted up their eyes afar off, and 
knew him not, they lifted up their voice, and wept ; and they 
rent every one his mantle, and sprinkled dust upon their heads 
toward heaven. 

Isa. 28:25: AYhen he hath made plain the face thereof, doth 
he not cast abroad the fitches, and scatter the cummin, and cast 
in the principal wheat and the appointed barley and the rie in 
their place ? 

Eze. 10:2: And he spake unto the man clothed with linen, 
and said, Go in between the wheels, even under the cherub, and 
fill thine hand with coals of fire from between the cherubims, 
and scatter them over the city. And he went in in my sight. 

Kosea 7:9: Strangers have devoured his strength, and he 
knoweth U not: yea, gray hairs are here and there upon him, 
yet he knoweth not. 

Ex. iiilO: And they took ashes of the furnace, and stood 
before Pharaoh; and Moses sprinkled it up toward heaven; and 
it became a boil breaking forth with blains upon man, and 
upon beast. 

8. And the Lord said unto Moses and unto Aaron, Take to 
you handf uls of ashes of the furnace, and let Moses sprinkle it 
toward the heaven in the sight of Pharaoh. 

The thirty-fifth occurrence of the word is in 

Eze. 36 :25 and reads : 

" Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be 
clean from all your filthiness and from all your idols will I 
cleanse you." 

Read Numbers, chapter 19, and iearn how 
this ''clean water/' ''water of purification/' or 
^' water of separation '^ was made, and you will 



BIBLE HISTORY. 61 

&ee tJiat it is not pare water, but water and the 
ashes of the heifer mixed, which made lye. 
This preparation was applied to the person for 
a legal cleansing, but could not take away sin 
nor touch the conscience. Heb. 9:9; 10:4. 

In Heb. 9:13 Paul says this sprinkling was 
for the ^'putting away of the filth of the flesh.'' 
Peter says in his first letter, 3 :21, that baptism 
is ^' not for the putting away of the filth of the 
flesh.'' Therefore the '^sprinkling of clean 
water '^ in Ezekiel, and the baptism of the New 
Testament cannot be identical. The word 
sprinkle occurs but seven times in the New 
Testament, and every time it is used in con- 
nection with the sprinkling of blood. 

Following are the passages where it may be 

found : 

Heb. 13:13: For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the 
ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the pur- 
ifying of the ilesh. 

19. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the peo- 
ple jiccording to the lavr, h« lor.k Ihe biood of c: Ives and of 
goats, with wate^, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled, 
both the book, and all the people. 

21. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle 
and all the vessels of the ministry. 

Heb. 10:22: Let us drawnear with a true heart in fuU assr.r- 
ance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil con- 
science, and our bodies washed with pure water. 

Heb. 11:28: Through faith he kept the passover, ; ixl 11:h 
sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed thy lirsib^/rn hiiov.U 
touch them. 

Heb. 12:24: And to Jesus the mediator of the nc^w rovcDant, 
and 10 the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than 
that of Abel. 



62 BIBLE HISTOKY. 

1 Pf ter 1:2: C.ect aecordiiiQ,- to tl.e foreknowledge of G(.d 
the Father, ihroi'gh saiiciiticaiion of tliO Spirit, unto obedience 
and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, 
and peace, be multiplied. 

'The idea of sprinkliDg clear water upon per- 
sons or things is not pouxd within the lids of 
THE BIBLE. It is HOt Commanded, not men- 
tioned, not even hinted at. If God intended 
sprinkling water upon persons to be an ordin- 
ance of His Church, that such an occurrence is 
never once named in His Word is unaccount- 
able. There is a great deal of sprinkling in the 
Old Testament, but no case of sprinkling clear 
water. Sprinkling the blood of Christ to take 
away an *' evil conscience, '' is the only sprink- 
ling alluded to in the New Testament, after 
which the body is to be washed in pure water. 
Heb. 10:12. 

The only instances of i^oirring in the New 
Testament are as follows : It is spoken (1) of 
wine, Matt. 9 :17 ; Mark 2 :22 ; (2) of emptying 
the changers' money, John 2.15; (3) of the 
effusion of the Holy Spirit, Acts 2 :17, 18, 33 ; 
Acts 10 :45, and Titus 3 :6 ; (4) of the shedding 
of blood, Acts 22:20; Romans 3:15; Rev. 
16 :6 ; (5) of pouring oil and wine upon the 
wounds of the man that fell among thieves, 
Luke 10 :34 ; (6) of pouring ointment upon the 
Saviour's head, Matt. 26:7, 12; Mark 14:3; 
(7) of pouring water into a basin to wash the 
disciples', feet, John 13:5; (8) of the outpour- 
ing of the vials of wrath, Rev. 16 :1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 



BIBLE HISTORY. 63^ 

10, 12 and 17. There is no case in the New Tes- 
tament in which water was poured upon any 
person. 

^'This examination proves that sprinkling 
water upon persons is an unscriptural rite. It 
is not Jewish ; it is not Christian. If any wish 
to perform the ceremony of sprinkling with 
any semblance of encouragement derived from 
the Bible, they must use ashes, or oil, or blood, 
either alone or mixed with water. The scrip- 
tures never mention nor allude to the idea of 
sprinkling pure water either upon persons or 
things. If sprinkling water had come within 
the practice of the Jewish ritual, it would be 
no reason why we should practice it. To 
adopt any practice because it was common 
among the Jews, would be silly ; but sprink- 
ling water has not even that to recommend it 
to our notice. It would be an extravagant as- 
sumption to take a ceremony which is author- 
ized by scripture, and call it baptism ; it is 
worse to fabricate one of which they are igno- 
rant, and put it in the place and give it the 
name of a heaven-appointed ordinance. We 
have proved that sprinkling or p)Oiiring water is 
not in the Bible. Neither, therefore, can be a 
form of Christian baptism. For in giving 
commands, issuing commissions, and making 
laws, the most explicit terras are always chosen. 
But if sprinkling or pouring be baptism, God 
in all His revelation has never once called the 



64 BIBLE HISTORY. 

ordinance by its most appropriate name. The 
word which most definitely describes the act, 
is never once coupled with the element in con- 
nection with which the rite is always to be per- 
formed. The words sprinJding and j^ure water 
are never joined in the Bible. The word which 
properly signifies jjouring is never once 
coupled with the word water. 

''Why is it thatbaptizo, which lexicographers 
and scholars, of all denominations, testify 
means primarily to dip, or irnmerse, is chosen 
to describe the rite ; and the word which 
means to sprinJde never used in any allusion to 
the rite, if sprinkling is the act to be per- 
formed? Why is baptizo chosen to describe 
the rite, and the word which means to j^our 
never used, if pouring is the act to be per- 
formed? If baptism is iinmersion, it is easy 
to see how the baptized may be said to have 
their * bodies washed in pure water;' but if 
baptism is sprinkling, or pouring a little water 
in the face, it is unaccountable that no icord 
descripjtive of such an operation occurs i)i the 
BibUj and that no allusions to such a practice 
are ever hinted at. There is but one conclu- 
sion. That neither spjrinJding nor pjouring is 
Christian baptism, is as certain as it is that 
holy men of old, speaking as they were moved 
by the Holy Spirit, called things by their right 
names/' 



BIBLE HISTORY. 65 

Our word '' sprinkle'' is a translation from 
the Greek word rantizo^ which means to 
sprinkle. A command cannot be understood 
and obeyed without using all the words neces- 
sary to convey all the thoughts of the one com- 
manding. Jesus spoke the Greek language, 
and being divine, He used the words necessary 
to clearly express His thoughts to the Apostles. 
In His commission. Matt. 28 : 19-20, He com- 
manded them to do certain things, but He did 
not use the word rantizOy nor a word of kindred 
meaning, but He used baptizo, a word which 
means immerse, and never did mean to 
sprinkle, and is not so rendered in any 
language. 

Therefore we are driven to the conclusion 
that Jesus did not command the Apostles to 
'' sprinkle'' the people. 

In this connection I desire to give my read- 
ers, for a ready reference, every occurrence of 
the word baptizo in its several forms in which 
it occurs in the New Testament. The italicized 
words are the words used in translating the 
Greek word. 

In this table I follow the Englishman's 
Greek Concordance. 

Baptizo occurs eighty times, viz. : 

Matt. 3:6, were baptized of li'm in Jordan. 
11, I indeed baptize you with water. 
11, he sJiall baptize you with. 

13, unto John, to be baptized of him. 

14, I have need to be baptized of thee. 
16, Jesus, when He was baptized. 



66 BIBLE HISTORY. 

Matt. 20:22, to he hajjiized with the baptism that I am bap 
tized with. 
23, and he baptized with the baptism that I am bap- 
tized with. 
28:10, haijtizing them in the name. 
Mark 1:4, John'^clid baptize in the wilderness. 
5, luere all baptized of him. 

8, I indeed haj^e hap)tized you with water but He 

sTiall hap)tize you. 

9, teas ha9:)tized of John. 

6:U, John the Baptist was risen. 

7:4, except they icash they eat not. 

10:38, and be bap)tized with the baptism that I am 

bap)tized with ? 
39, and with the baptism that I am baptized withal 

shall ye be baptized. 
16:16, He that belie veth and is baptized. 
Luke 3:7, to be baptized of him. 

12, to he baptized. 

16, baptizea you with water. 

16, sTtall baptize you. 

21, were baptized, Jesus also being baptized, 

7:29, being baptized. 

30, being not bajjtized. 
11:38, had not hrst washed, 
12:50, to he baptized with. . 

John 1:25, Why haptizest thou? 
26, I hap)tize with water. 
28, John icas baptizing, 

31, I came baptizing. 

33, sent me to baptize with water. 
33, which bap)tizeth w^ith the Holy Ghost. 
3:22, and bap)tized, 

23, John also was baptizing in ^non. 
23, they came -and were baptized, 
26, the same bap)tizetli. 
4:1, Jesus made and 6apf^^e6Z more. 
2, Jesus himself baptized not. 
10:40, place where John at first baptized. 
Acts 1:5, John truly baptized with water. 

5, ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. 
2:38, Repent and be bap)tized every one of you. 
41, received his word were baptized. 
8:12, were baptized, both men and women. 

13, when he was baptized. 
16, only they were baptized. 



BIBLE HISTORY. 67 

Acts 8 :36, hinder me to he baptized, 

38, and ho baptized him. 
{): IS, and was baptized. 
10:47, should not be baptized. 
48, to be baptized. 

11:16, 6«j?i^z-^ed with water. 

16, ye shall he baptized with H. S. 

16:15, when slie was baptized. 

33, zcas baptized, he and all his. 

18:8, Riidtvere baptized. 

19:3, with what thenz^ere ye baptized f 

4, John verily baptized. 

Z, they were baptized. 

22:16, arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins. 
Komans 6:3, so many of us as were baptized into Jesus 

Christ, were baptized into His death. 
1 Cor. 1:13, were ye baptized into the name. 

14, that I baptized none of you. 

15, that I had baptized in mine own name. 

16, I baptized also ^ * baptized any other. 

17, Christ sent me not to baptize, 
10:2, baptized unto Jesus. 
12:13, Spirit ai^e we all baptized. 
15:29, are baptized for the dead. 
29, why are they then baptized f 

Gal. 3:27, have been baptized into Christ. 

Baptisma occurs twenty-two times as follows : 

Matt. 3:7, came to his baptism. 

20:22, the bajMsm that I am baptized. 

23, with the baptism. 

21:25, the bapPsm of John. 
Mark 1:4, the baptism of repentance. 

10:38, the baptismi\i?ii I am. 

39, the baptism that I am. 
11:30, the baptism of John. 

Luke 3:3, the baptism of repentance. 

7:29, with the baptism of John. 

12:50, I have a baptism. 

20:4, the bap)tism of John. 
Acts 1:22, from the baptism of John. 

10:37, the bap)tism which John. 

13:24, the baptism of repentance. 

18:25, the baptism of John. 

19:3, Unto John's baptism, 

4, the baptism of repentance. 



68 BIBLE HISTORY. 

Romans 6:4, with Him by haptism. 

Eph. 4:5, one haptism. 

Col. 2:12, Buried with Him in haptism, 

1 Peter 3:21, haptism doth also now save us. 

Baptismos occurs four times, and is found in 
the following scriptures : 

Mark 7:4, washing of cups and pots. 

8, inasliing of pots and cups. 
Heb. 6:2, doctrine of haptisms. 

9:10, and divers washings. 

Baptistees is found fourteen times and is 
rendered as follows : 

Matt. 3:1, came John the Baptist. 

11:11, John the Baptist. 

12, days of John the Baptist 

14:2, This is John the Baptist 

8, John Baptist's head. 

16:14, John the Baptist. 

12:13, John the Baptist. 
Mark 6:24, head of John the Baptist. 

25, head of John the Baptist. 

8:28, John the Baptist. 
Luke 7:20, John Baptist hath sent us. 

28, greater than John the Baptist. 

33, John the BajMst 

9:19, John the Baptist. 

Bapto, from which we get baptizo, is never 
used with reference to baptism. It is found 
three times as follows : 

Luke 16:24, may- dip the tip of his finger. 
John 13:26, sop ivJien I have dipped it. 
Rev. 19:13, vesture dip)p)ed in blood. 

In the above we find the Greek haptizo used 
eighty times, seventy-eight times rendered hajp' 
tizCy baj)tizedy etc., and one time each wash and 
washed. Baptisvios is three times rendered 
washing. But when we remember the JeAvish 
washings of cups and pots, and brazen vessels. 



BIBLE HISTORY. 69 

tables, couches, persons, and things mentioned 
among the traditions of the elders and in the 
Law, were for ceremonial cleansings and were 
all performed by immersion, we will have the 
correct idea. Nothing was ever cleansed since 
the world stood, by sprinkling water upon it. 
Not one instance can he found. '^ Baptismos is 
never connected with Christian baptism. We 
have one hundred and twenty occurrences of 
baptizo, baptisinoSy baptisma, and baptistees,'^ but 
not one instance where any one of them is ren- 
dered by sprinkle or pour. 

That the Jews understood the washing of the 
flesh to mean, bathing the whole body, may 
be seen in the case of Naaman, 2 Kings, 
5:10-14. 

"And Elisha sent a messenger unto him, saying, Go and 
wash in Jordan seven times, and thy flesh shall come again to 
thee, and thou shalt be clean." 

How did Naaman obey the command? 

" Then went he down, and dipped himself seven times in 
Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God; and his 
flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was 
clean." 

He was commanded to ^^wash/'' and he 
'^dipped himself.'' Did he obey the prophet? 
The best evidence is found in the language, 
^^ He dipped himself seven times in Jordan ac- 
cording to the saying of the man of God.^^ And 
God approved his act by healing him. 

Would God have approved the act had it not 
been what was commanded? Tis needless to 



70 BIBLE HISTORY. 

ask. This can be made wonderfully helpful in 
the study of the Jewish washings. 

'^The word dipped which expresses the act 
performed by Naaman, is from the Hebrew 
word taval^ which the seventy Jews who trans- 
lated the Hebrew scriptures into Greek ren- 
dered haptizOy the very word which our Lord 
subsequently employed to indicate immersion. 
Then, as King James' translators gave us dip 
as the English equivalent of taval, and the Jew- 
ish translators gave us haptizo as its Greek 
representative, it follows that, in the judgment 
of the seventy scholars who made the Septua- 
gint, and the forty-seven who made the com- 
mon version, haptizo in Greek, and dip in En- 
glish are synonymous. And since things 
which are equal to the same thing, are equal to 
each other, it follows that haptizo in Greek, and 
dip in English, being equal to taval in Hebrew, 
are equal to each other, hence dip is demon- 
strably the proper translation of haptizo, ^^ 

IS IT TOTAL DEPRAVITY? 

I once heard a preacher of a denomination 
that boasts of a learned ministry, preach on 
the action of baptism. He ridiculed the idea 
of immersion when he referred to the washing 
of beds and couches. ''The idea! Think of 
immersing our beds, lifting the great feather 
ticks soaking wet from their bath of water,'' 
And the minister lifted his eyes from reading 



IS IT TOTAL DEPRAVITY? 71 

his little essay, to catch the approving smile 
of the good old sisters, and he caught it. 
Think you that man knew that when he ridi- 
culed the idea of immersing a bed, or couch, 
he was laughing at his Saviour? 

Jesus says, ''Take up thy bed and walk." 
But the idea of taking up a straw tick, full of 
straw, a feather tick of an hundred pounds 
weight, the covering, and the bedstead, and 
walking away with it ! You see the point. 
That man did not know that a bed in Palestine 
consisted of a blanket, or robe, that a man 
could roll up, and carry under his arm with 
the greatest ease, and that frequent spread- 
ing upon the ground rendered frequent wash- 
ing an absolute necessity ; or, knowing it, he 
purposely kept it from his people. In one case 
he was too ignorant to be a teacher, in the 
other too dishonest to run a ''bucket shop.'' 
If this shall seem harsh to the reader, let him 
remember it as indicative of my contempt for 
dishonesty in the pulpit. 

Again, to prove his point he referred to Lev. 
14 :50-52, and to show the utter impossibility 
of it being a dipping or an immersion^ he 
raised the question how could all these things, 
"cedar wood, and hyssop, and the scarlet, and 
the living bird " be immersed in the blood of 
one little bird? Did that man fail to see that 
the very verse he was commenting on says the 
bird was to be killed in an earthen vessel over 



72 IS IT TOTAL DEPRAVITY? 

running water, and that the blood of the bird 
and the running water were to be mingled, 
and the living bird dipped in the mixture? I 
do not believe it. 

I mention these things to show to what ex- 
tremes men can go, to save a pet theory that is 
not so much as mentioned in the entire Bible. 

Some men are ignorant because it better 
serves their unscriptural purposes. Ridicul- 
ing the idea of an immersion when the verse 
tells just how the dipping or the immersing 
can be performed is dishonest ; and when done 
by a fairly well educated preacher is dishon- 
esty in the extreme. 

In the light of what we have examined, is 
sprinkling a New Testament ordinance? 

The history of the matter tells us plainly, 
and repeatedly, that it is not; but, that im- 
mersion was the prevailing practice of the 
church for 1,300 years. By this investigation 

WE HAVE LEARNED 

(1) that sprinkling originated in Africa in the 
second century, among the ignorant and super- 
stitious Catholics ; but no law was made con- 
cerning it, until the seventh century. 

2. That '^ John Calvin was the first man 
among Protestants to change the ordinance of 
baptism.'^ 

3. We learned why the change was made, 
viz. : The Bishops said, " the devil of immer- 



WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED. 73 

sion ought to be legislated out of the realm it 
was so troublesome. '' And Calvin said : 
''The Church hath granted to herself the pri- 
vilege ot somewhat altering the form of bap- 
tism, retaining the substance, that is, the 
words '' 

Let us pause and ask Calvin what the ''form 
ot baptism '' was before he changed it. Listen 
to hife answer : ' ' The word baptizo signifies to 
immeise , and it is certain that immersion was 
the piactice of the ancient Church," 

4 We learned the meaning of baptizo from 
the most eminent scholars, and lexicographers, 
who say it means "to immerse, and that 
sprinkle and pour are entirely out of the 
question '' 

5. We learned that the Old Testament says 
not one word about sprinkling unmixed water 
upon any person or thing. 

6. We found that the New Testament does 
not speak of sprinkling water for any purpose : 
and that Jesus never used the word rantizo 
(sprinkle) 

7o We learned that we cannot find one 
standard Greek-English Lexicon that defines 
the Greek word baptizo by sprinkle or pour. 
Ail this teaches us that " sprinlding for bap- 
tism'' is a part of the ''doctrines and com- 
mandments of men,'' and hence all who teach 
this innovation, worship God in vain. Mark 
7:7. 



74 WHAT WE HAVE LEAKNED. 

If Jesus intended His Church to sprinkle 
water upon penitent believers, is it not passing 
strange that He never said so? As baptism is 
a New Testament ordinance, if sprinkling 
water upon a person is baptism, is it not mar- 
velous that the New Testament is as silent as 
the grave upon the subject? 

If sprinkling is baptism, then God has given 
us the wrong book, for sprinkling or pouring 
mere water upon any person or thing for any 
moral, ceremonial or religious use was never 
done by divine authority since the world 
began. 

I know these things are true for I have 
made a careful examination of this subject. If 
you, kind reader, can find one verse of scrip- 
ture where the sprinkling or pouring of water 
is commanded, I will yield the point. If you 
cannot find one such scripture, why do you 
adhere to the doctrine? 

Baptism is to be administered in the name 
of Jesus Christ. ^'In the name of" means by 
the authority of. Every time a preacher 
sprinkles water upon a person and says, '^In 
obedience to the command of Jesus Christ I 
baptize you,'' he says what is positively un- 
true ; for such a command, precept, or exam- 
ple cannot be found between the lids of the 
Bible. 

Every one may know this if he will take 
the pains to examine God's book. 



WHAT WE HAVE LEARIS^ED. 75 

To perform an act and say that you do it in 
the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, 
when neither of these august personages say 
one word on the subject, is getting as far from 
the truth as it is possible for a man to go. A 
preacher must have little to do, that is import- 
ant, when he can spend his time in preaching, 
and teaching something, about which the Holy 
Spirit has failed to communicate a single idea. 
^^But,'' says one, '' out of your own mouth you 
condemn yourself, for the word immerse is not 
in the Bible, and you are contending that noth- 
ing else is baptism." 

Let us study carefully the following chapter 
and learn why the word immerse is not in the 
Bible. 



CHAPTER X. 

WHY THE WORD IMMERSE IS NOT IN THE 
BIBLE. 

IT may be interesting to learn why the word 
IMMERSE IS NOT IN THE BIBLE." Let his- 
tory tell. When King James called his 
wise men to translate the Bible, which work 
was completed in 1611, the King gave them 
fourteen rules to govern them in their work. 
Two of the rules I will quote: 1. '^ Old 
ecclesiastical words must be kept, as, the word 
church must not be translated congregation, 
etc." 

2. ^^The ordinary Bible, read in the 
church, commonly called the Bishop's Bible, 
to be followed, and as little altered as the orig- 
inal will permit.'' 

{See Leivis^ history of the English translations 
of the Bible,) 

The ^^Bishop^s Bible" was a translation 
made by the Bishops about 1561. 

At this very time the ^^new doctrine of Cal- 
vin," viz., sprinkling, was being sharply dis- 
cussed. Many of the Bishops were in favor of 
abolishing immersion, which at that time was 
enforced by the law of England, and substitut- 
ing sprinkling in its stead. These proud and 
unscrupulous bigots used every means to bring 



78 WHY IMMERSION IS JS^OT IN THE BIBLE. 

about the change, even going before Parlia- 
ment and preaching on the subject, affirming 
that ^ ' the devil of immersion ought to be leg- 
islated out of the realm, it was so trouble- 
some/' 

It was during this heated controversy, that 
the Bishops made their translation. When 
they came to the word haptizo^ what did they 
do? What could they do? If they were to 
translate the word, it would '^ legislate the 
devil of immersion'' into the realm, instead of 
^ legislating it out. " A happy thought came to 
them ; and what was it? We will not trans- 
late the w^ord at all, but transfer it from the 
Greek, into the English language, and give it 
an English termination. That is, they dropped 
the Greek letter omega at the end of the word, 
and substituted the English letter e. Baptizo 
is the Greek, baptize is the same word angli- 
cized by giving it an English termination. 
The Bishops did not translate the word, but 
left it in the Greek, to cover up their pious 
fraud, as we shall presently prove. 

That you may be able to form some opinion 
of the honestly and piety of these Bishops, let 
me remind the reader that it was by the decree 
of these same Bishops that many people were 
bitterly persecuted, banished, burned to the 
stake, and tormented in the most devilish 
manner simply because they could not believe 



WHY IMMERSION IS NOT IN THE BIBLE. 79 

and practice what these wicked and godless 
Bishops taught. 

How did it please these time servers to re- 
gard the word as one of the ' ' old ecclesiastical 
words/' spoken of by the King, which they 
were warned to keep? How did the King and 
his partners obey the law? In the Septuagint 
Greek, 2 Kings 5:14, in Isa. 21:4 and Job 
9:31, et. al.y they found the same word bap- 
tizo, but in these places they translated it. 
In Matt. 26:23, Mark 14:20, Luke 16:24, and 
in John 13 :26, ^^ where the same Greek words 
occur they disregard their age, and their 
ecclesiastical nature,'' and translate them into 
plain English ; but where these words stand 
connected with Christian baptism the Bishops 
never translated them. How did they come to 
be '^old ecclesiastical words '' in one place and 
not in another? Simply that these men might 
carry their point, and get rid of the ^^ devil of 
immersion.'' The certain and unavoidable 
conclusion of this matter is, the reason the 
vv^ord immerse is not in the Bible is because 
the Greek word baptizo was not translated, but 
was left in the Greek for reasons that are ap- 
parent. Whenever and wherever you find the 
word translated, it is rendered by immerse, 
dip, plunge, or a word of kindred meaning, 
but never by the words sprinkle, pour or 
purify. 

In this investigation more than forty of the 



80 WHY IMMERSION IS NOT IN THE BIBLE. 

most eminent scholars, historians and lexicog- 
raphers have been called to testify. Not one 
of them is an immersionist. If they were 
biased on this subject it would be in favor of 
sprinkling. Yet in the face of all their teach- 
ing and practice, when they come to write the 
history of the Church they tell us that for thir- 
teen centuries the prevailing practice was im- 
mersion. When they, as scholars, come to 
define the Greek word that Jesus used when 
He commanded the Apostles to ^^ teach all 
nations, hajptizontes (immersing) them, they, 
with one accord, say it means to immerse and 
never to sprinkle or pour. 

If such men as Liddell and Scott, E. A. 
Sophocles, Herman Cremer, and Thayer, do 
not know the meaning of a Greek word that is 
as common in the Greek language as immerse 
is in the English, or, if knowing the meaning, 
they have failed to reveal it to us, how do we 
know but they have deceived us in regard to 
thousands of other words? 

But this is not a supposable case. The fore- 
most scholars of the world are not so ignorant 
as not to know, neither are they so depraved as 
to make it possible for them to so deceive the 
people. 

If we may not know that the history givei^i 
to us by these men, is true, and their defini- 
tion of words correct, then there is no possible 
way of knowing anything that our eyes have 
not seen, or our hands handled. 



WHY IMMERSION IS NOT IN THE BIBLE. 81 

After all that has been said, some inquiring 
mind may raise this question : 

Why do these learned men, many of whom 
are eminent divines, practice sprinkling 
instead of immersion, when they all say that 
baptizo never means to sprinkle, and that im- 
mersion was practiced by the Apostles? 



CHAPTER XI. 

WHY PREACH 0N3 THING AND PRACTICE ANOTHER. 

THIS is a proper question, and at first 
thought quite difficult to answer. 

I will use the Yankee's method, and 
answer the question by asking another. Why 
do these wise men teach and practice many 
other things about which the Word of God says 
not one word f Where do you read about babies 
being' members of the church? Where do you 
read about infant baptism, and god- father s-and 
god-mothers? In what chapter do you learn 
that baptism came in the room of circumcis- 
ion? In what book did you read, ^' that we are 
justified by faith only is a most wholesome 
doctrine and very full of comfort/' Jas. 2 :24. 
You learn all these things in the Methodist 
Discipline, a book that did not have an exist- 
ence for more than 1,700 years after the New 
Testament was written. Whence came the 
idea that none but the priests should partake 
of the communion wine? Jesus, who insti- 
tuted the supper, said to the Disciples : '^Drink 
ye all of it.'' From whence came the doctrine 
of auricular confession? Auricular means 
^' told in the ear.'' Hence auricular confession 
is, confessing in the ear. A Roman Catholic 



84 PREACHING VERSUS PRACTICE. 

custom by which the Church, through her 
priests, is enabled to extort from the worship- 
ers a confession of their sins. 

Where did the doctrine of transubstantiation 
originate? This means that by the prayer of 
the Priest the ^^ bread and wine of the Lord's 
table, are changed into the actual body and 
blood of Christ." Prayers for the dead, and, sell- 
ingindulgences ; that is, if you pay a certain sum 
of money, the Pope or Priest will indulge you 
in your sins, and remit the temporal punish- 
ment due to sin. Immense sums of money 
have been gathered into the coffers of the 
Roman Catholic Church through the practice 
of this abomination. 

The Koman Catholic Church teaches that 
when a man is ordained a Priest by a Roman 
Catholic Bishop he receives power to forgive 
sins. The Bishop uses the following in the 
ordination service : ^^ Receive the Ploly Ghost ; 
whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven 
them, and whose sins you shall retain, they 
are retained. '^ This was the power conferred 
by the Saviour upon the Apostles, and they as 
a rule exercised the power by pointing men to 
Jesus who alone had power to forgive sins. 

At the fourteenth session of the Council of 
Trent, held under Pope Julius III, Nov. 25, 
1551, it was decreed that all Priests, ''even 
those who are living in mortal sin, exercise the 
power of forgiving sins, as the minister of 



PREACHING VERSUS PRACTICE. 85 

Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit con- 
ferred upon them in ordination/' and the coun- 
cil further adds, ^^ that those who contend that 
wicked Priests have not this power are griev- 
ously in error/' 

The idea that an immoral and ungodly man 
can forgive sins, or retain sins, and that the 
declaration comes with the force of a judicial 
act cannot be believed for a moment, save by 
the mind that has received its training along 
this special line, and every item of testimony 
pointing in this direction is as foreign i3 the 
teachings of Jesus as the sin of witchcraft 

St. Alphonsus Liguori, who was canonized 
by Pope Gregory XVI, in 1839, and made a 
Doctor of the Church by Pius IX in 1871, says 
in his work on '' The Dignity and Duties of 
the Priest^': '^The Priest holds the place of 
the Saviour himself when, by saying ^ ego te 
ahsolvOj he absolves from sin. This power 
which Christ received from His eternal Father, 
He has communicated to His Priests. To par- 
don a single sin requires all the omnipotence 
of God. But what only God can do by His 
omnipotence, the Priest can also do by saying 
'' ego te ahsolvo a peccatis ticis,^ ^ ^ The 
priest has the power of the keys, or the power 
of delivering sinners from hell, of changing 
them from the slaves of Satan into the children 
of God. And God himself is obliged to abide 
by the judgment of His Priests, and either not ^u 



86 PREACHIXG VERSUS PRACTICE. 

to pardon or to pardon, according as they re- 
fuse or give absolution/' 

This same Liguori wrote a book, possibly the 
one above mentioned, which was endorsed by 
the Pope. 

It is one of the most immoral books in the 
English language. It would make a decent 
man blush v/ith shame to read it, and yet we 
read about such men standing in Jesus' place 
and pronouncing the remission of sins. 

These are Papal doctrines, born in the mind 
of some corrupt Pope or Priest, during the age 
when the ^^ Holy (?) Catholic Church^' would 
burn a man to death, bore his eyes, cut out his 
tongue or stretch him on an iron bedstead if 
he was too short, or cut his feet or head off if 
he was too long to fit the bed, if he dared to 
deny any of the doctrines of the Church, or 
make a new and valuable discovery. 

Do you find any of these doctrines affirmed 
in the New Testament? None but the bigot 
will say yes. Even the Catholic will not 
claim it. He sets aside the whole difficulty by 
declaring that the ^'Church has a right to 
change the ordinances to suit herself '' 

Would that the people were well read on the 
subject of Romanism. It is the most gigantic 
system of ignorance and oppression that ever 
cursed the earth. 

From whence came the doctrine concerning 
infants, elect and non-elect? The little inno- 



PKEACHING VERSUS PRACTICE. 87 

cent ones who are so unfortunate as to be of 
the non-elect, though they have never per- 
formed a single act, either good or bad, must 
be consigned to the regions of the damned. 
And to intensify the comforting and consoling 
doctrine(?), please remember that the decree that 
relegates them to the dark abodes of the con- 
demned, was made in the ^^ secret councils of 
God before the worlds were framed/' 

This heathenish doctrine is found in the 
Westminster Confession of Faith, a book that 
was not written for 1,600 years after Christ. 

Explain how intelligent men can teach that 
infants go to hell, and you have explained how 
they can teach that immersion is scriptural, 
and at the same time practice something en- 
tirely unlike it. 

Does the Bible say anything about ^^ Total 
Hereditary Depravity? '' Not a word. It is 
the '^ Calvinistio Baptist Confession of Faith'' 
that teaches this doctrine, that makes a man 
as bad as the Devil ; for Satan himself cannot 
be more than totally depraved. 

This doctrine our Baptist brethren have in- 
scribed upon their battle flag, as the following 
extract from a paper of recent date proves : 

We wish it distinctly understood that, with all true Baptists, 
we hold and teach the Bible doctrine of the total hereditary 
depravity of the sinner. — Baptist Flag. 

'' Bible doctrine !" Will the " Flag'' give the 
chapter and verse? One statement from the 



88 PREACHING VERSUS PRACTICE. 

Holy Spirit will outweigh all that men can say 
on this subject. The doctrines of uncondi- 
tional election and total depravity have made 
more infidels than all the Ingersols that ever 
lived. 

The Church voting to decide if a penitent 
believer shall be baptized. 

This is purely Baptist usage, in regard to 
which the Holy Spirit says not one word. It 
may be a good rule for the Baptist Church, but 
please, dear brethren, do not seek to govern 
the Church of Christ by this human invention. 
Demanding a Christian experience before one 
can be immersed is another practice that is 
wholly without any divine warrant. It does 
not keep out impostors. The Apostles could 
not keep them out ; one of their number was a 
devil, 

Cyprian relates a case concerning a nursing 
child ^'who so violently refused to taste the sac- 
ramental wine, that the deacon was obliged 
forcibly to open her lips and pour it down her 
throat." 

It seems clear that men who could practice 
such unscriptural, not to say unreasonable 
things, would practice almost anything in the 
name of religion, if it only had the sanction of 
a robed and mitered priest. 

For a thousand years during the dark ages, 
which lasted from the African war, A. D. 533, 
to the French revolution, A. D. 1793, perhaps 



PREACHING VEESUS PRACTICE. 89 

not one person in five hundred could read a 
word in the Bible. It was owned and con- 
trolled by the Roman Catholic Church. It was 
printed in Latin on purpose to keep it from the 
common people, and the Priests, many of 
whom were corrupt and licentious, explained 
the scriptures to the people according as it best 
suited their designing and unscrupulous pur- 
poses. During the dark ages thousands of 
errors crept into the Church, and by long prac- 
tice they came to be regarded as sacred. Gen- 
eration after generation was trained up in the 
belief and practice of these unscriptural doc- 
trines. 

The idea of the infallibility of the Pope, gave 
birth to the kindred idea that ^' the Church had 
the right to change the ordinances of the 
Church to suit herself,'' and these doctrines 
laid the foundation for untold error and cor- 
ruption, which was received by the people in 
all good faith, because they believed in the 
Pope and Priest, more than they did in Jesus 
Christ, since they knew more about them. 

^^Old ecclesiastical words" with erroneous 
ideas attached, were accepted by an ignorant 
people, who had implicit faith in their Priest. 
When light began to daAvn, and the Reforma- 
tion came, in th^ sixteenth century, it found 
these errors, hoary with age, so deeply ground- 
ed in the minds of the people, that ignorance, 



90 PREACHIXG VERSUS PRACTICE. 

superstition, and bigotry, could not be pre- 
vailed upon to abandon them. 

The intellectual light of the nineteenth cen- 
tury, flashing and bright, and piercing as the 
electric glare, could not drive out the demons 
of error. They had had undisputed possession 
too long. The reader can verify this state- 
ment. For example : The sprinkling or 
pouring of water for baptism is not mentioned 
in the entire Bible, as you will see if you will 
examine. But you see churches to-day prac- 
ticing this invention of man with as much 
confidence, apparently, as if the God of 
Heaven had commanded it. Why does the 
preacher practice sprinkling? Because his 
church creed or book of discipline teaches it. 
Why does the person submit to it? The babe 
submits because it cannot help itself ; and the 
believer because the preacher tells him it is all 
sufficient. 

Tell me why men teach many things about 
which the Holy Spirit never communicated a 
single idea, and you will have answ^ered the 
question, ^'why do men teach and practice 
sprinkling and pouring for baptism, and at the 
same time admit that the New Testament 
teaches immersion only? " 



CHAPTER XII. 

A CRUMB OF COMFORT. 

'' A CRUMB of comfort'' is enjoyed by the 
/~\^ effusionist from the fact that Webster 
speaks of baptism being administered 
by sprinkling. It will be well to remember that 
the men who write dictionaries do not make the 
meaning of the words. They simply define 
the words as used by the best writers and 
speakers. Should the meaning of the word 
ever be changed from immerse to that of 
sprinkle, it would be no argument in favor of 
sprinkling for Christian baptism, since the 
question does not hinge upon what the w^ord 
baptizo means now, but what did it mean when 
used by Christ and the Apostles. 

Another grain of comfort is found in the 
statement that a 

MAJORITY PRACTICE SPRINKLING. 

Such a statement proves that the man who 
makes it is very poorly posted, for it is just 
seven points from the truth. 

When the Council of Ravenna (Catholic) 
granted to the Papal world the privilege of 
sprinkling, we must not conclude that the mil- 
lions of Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, 



92 A CRUMB OF COMFORT. 

Italy and England at once accepted the privi- 
lege. Not so. Catholic France rejected it. 
England held on to immersion for three cen- 
turies more ; so did other states of Europe. 
And a very large part of the Catholic Church 
holds on to the Apostolic custom to this day. 

The whole church practiced immersion for 
thirteen centuries, and half of it for eighteen 
hundred years, and the balance for fourteen 
and sixteen hundred years. There are to-day 
85,000,000 souls in the Greek Church. 

From the days of the Apostles down to the 
present time, the Greeks have practiced im- 
mersion. 

There are many Protestant bodies that prac- 
tice immersion. There are comparatively few, 
outside of the Roman Catholic Church, who 
have not been immersed. About seven per- 
sons have been immersed to every one that has 
been sprinkled. 

Alas ! how mightily the truth has blasted 
many an error. One verse of scripture, affirna- 
ing, approving or even hinting at the doctrine 
of sprinkling water upon people, and calling it 
Christian baptism, will overturn everything 
that I have said in favor of immersion. But 
where is the scripture? And echo answers 
where? Let some wise man find it, and settle 
this '' fool," (I speak after the manner of men) 
forever. 



CHAPTER XIII. 

WHAT DID JESUS MEAN? 

WE have no way of arriving at the mean- 
ing of a law, but by the words used in 
publishing the law, and we must know 
the meaning of the words. 

All intelligent law-makers and law-givers 
use words in their ordinary acceptation. If 
used otherwise there is an explanation of the 
reason why they are used in an 6:^^ra-ordinary 
sense. 

In the commission given to the Apostles by 
Jesus, as recorded in Matt, 28:19-20, we find 
the instructions that were to guide them in 
their work of completing the Kingdom of God, 
and of making known the terms of admission, 
and the benefits to be enjoyed by every one 
who would become a citizen thereof. In this 
commission Jesus says, ^'Go teach all nations, 
baptizing (baptizo) them,'' etc. What did He 
mean when he said ^^ baptizing?'' If we do 
not know what He meant we do not understand 
Him, and hence cannot obey Him, and yet He 
commands us to be baptized (Acts 2 :38). This 
places our Lord in an awkward attitude before 
intelligent persons, and shows the utter fool- 
ishness of saying '^ we do not know what He 



94 WHAT DID JESUS MEAN? 

meant/^ Or, He meant two or three things, 
either one of which is as diflferent from the 
other as immerse is from sprinkle, or as pour 
is from immerse or sprinkle. 

"We must arrive at the meaning of words by 
consulting our best writers and speakers. This 
has been the burden of our task in this little 
work. 

We have called up scores of men who lived 
before Christ and since ; literary men, — famous 
for their Greek lore : the best historians, 
writers of our greatest encyclopedias, the best 
lexicographers the world has given us, and our 
most scholarly translators, and without a single 
exception these men affirm most positively 
that the word Jesus used when He said ^^bap- 
tizing (baptizo) them/' means immerse^ and that 
it does not, and never did mean, sprinkle or 
pour. If we may not come to this conclusion 
without a doubt, then we can never arrive at 
the meaning of any law, command, or prom- 
ise made in former times, and hence all our 
history is a perfect failure, incomprehensible 
and inexplainable. But this, nobody believes. 

We can, and do, arrive at the correct mean- 
ing of all words used in all languages. Jesus 
said, " Go teach all nations, immersing them." 
Peter, in Acts 2 :38, said, ^^ Repent and be im- 
mersed,''^ Luke said. Acts 8:38, ''They both 
went down into the water, both Philip and the 
eunuch, and he immersed him/' 



WHAT DID JESUS MEAN? 95 

And so, according to the testimony of this 
great cloud of witnesses that we have heard tes- 
tify, in every place, where the word baptize is 
found it should be rendered by the English 
word immerse. If there is a shadow of a doubt 
in regard to this statement, then it is doubtful 
if the most learned Greeks know the meaning 
of one of the most common words in their lan- 
guage. This reduces the question to an absurd- 
ity, and removes every doubt in the mind of 
the thoughtful. In His conversation with Nico- 
demus Jesus said, ^^ Except a man be born of 
water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into 
the Kingdom of God/' John 3 :5. This state- 
ment was made in the beginning of our 
Saviour's public ministry, and contains the 
same thought as the commission, given to the 
Apostles at the close of His public ministry, 
viz., the way into the Kingdom or Church. 
By reference to, and a study of, Matt. 16 : 13-21, 
you will learn that the '' Kingdom '' spoken of 
by Jesus and His ^^ Church,'' are one and the 
same thing. I have never found a creed or 
confession of faith, and I have examined not a 
few, that does not quote John 3 :5 in their bap- 
tismal formula. 

This means that the writers of those docu- 
ments and the church to which they belong, 
understand the words of Jesus, ^^born of 
water," to refer to baptism. And in the light 
of what we have learned it was an immersion ; 



96 WHAT DID JESUS MEAN? 

and in the light of common sense it was an im- 
mersion, since a person cannot be horn of 
something that is less than himself. Paul says 
in Col. 1 :24 that the Church and Christ's body 
are the same. The government that Jesus set 
up on earth is called ^' My Church'' (Matt. IB- 
IS ; '' His Body'^ (Col, 1 :24) ; ^^His Kingdom'' 
(Col. 1 :13), and the way into this divine gov- 
ernment is clearly and minutely marked out 
in the New Testament, which is the constitu- 
tion of Christ's Kingdom or Church. 

In Romans 6 :3 Paul says we are baptized 
(immersed) into Jesus Christ. Hence we are 
immersed into ^'His body," '^His Church," 
^^His Kingdom," since these are all one and 
the same organization. 

Now we are prepared to ask, can a person be 
sprinkled into Christ, or His Church? Will 
sprinkling meet the requirement of the com- 
mand? Did Jesus say, " Go teach all nations, 
sprinMing them"? Did He say, ^^ He that be- 
lieveth and is sprinUed shall be saved?" Did 
Peter, on Pentecost, say, ''Repent and be 
sprinkledV^ Will doing something that Jesus 
never commanded meet the requirement? 

Will our thinking it is right make it right? 
If so, then Jesus ought to have said, '^ Do what 
you think is right, and you shall be saved. But 
some will say, how can one do more than what 
he honestly believes is right? He cannot. But, 
can a man honestly believe that sprinkling 



WHAT DID JESUS MEAN? 97 

will answer the purpose when Jesus never said 
a word on the subject? Is it possible for a 
man to honestly believe he obeyed the law 
when he did something that the law says not 
one word about? There is not one word said 
in the Bible about sprinkling water as a religi- 
ous ceremony. It is the Discipline and the 
Confession of Faith that says sprinkle ; and if 
we can be saved by obeying these things, as 
well had Jesus never spoken. 

Let^us take one example that will apply in 
every case. Naaman (2 Kings, 5) was com- 
manded to go and dip himself seven times in 
the river Jordan. The promise was, '^and 
thou shalt be clean/^ The means selected as 
the channel through which Naaman should 
become the recipient of God's favor, were the 
river Jordan, and the act of dipping seven 
times. Suppose Naaman had made a mistake 
and went to some other river, honestly believ- 
ing it was the Jordan. Would he have been 
healed? Or, suppose he had dipped the water, 
and sprinkled it upon himself, seven times, 
instead of dipping himself seven times in the 
water. Would he have been healed? To say 
that he would is to say that he would have 
been healed without obeying the prophet of 
God. (This being true, there is no meaning in 
a divine command.) 

Faithy repentance and immersion constitute 
the divinely appointed way through which we 



98 WHAT DID JESUS MEAN? 

may approach Christ, receive the forgiveness of 
our sins, and enjoy the benefits of the King- 
dom of God's dear Son. 

Faith^ repentance and sprinkling is another 
law altogether, concerning which God has re- 
vealed nothing. 

The moment we change a divine law in the 
least particular, that moment it ceases to be 
God's law, and becomes man's requirement. 
God is not bound by man's law, but is, to all 
intents and purposes, bound by His own law. 

Suppose the State law says, the dead animal 
shall be buried, or the owner thereof shall be 
fined in the sum of twenty-five dollars. The 
animal dies, and the owner sprinkles a small 
particle of dust on the dead body. 

On trial for violation of law, he pleads that 
he was honest in believing that he had met the 
full requirement of the law. Would any judge 
or jury excuse him? No! Why not? So 
long as he fails to show that the law says 
sprinkle, just so long would he utterly fail to 
convince the judge that he was honest. He 
might plead that somebody told him that 
sprinkling the dust would answer, and it was 
much more convenient. The quick response 
would be, it is not a question of man's say-so, 
but how reads the law? 

One says, '' I honestly believe sprinkling will 
do." But whose word do you honestly be- 
lieve? It cannot be God's or Christ's word. 



WHAT DID JESUS MEAN? 99 

for they say nothing on the subject. It is the 
Discipline, the Confession of Faith, and the 
Catechism that you honestly believe. 

Let me remind you that a man may be hon- 
est, and at the same time be a very great sin- 
ner. Saul was honest when he was persecut- 
ing the Christians, yet after his conversion he 
tells us he ^^ did it in all good conscience,'' but 
was the ^^ chief of sinners. '^ ^^ What if one 
thinks he has been baptized when he has not?" 
He certainly is mistaken. Suppose he really 
thinks he has. Then he is really mistaken. 
But if he honestly believes it? He is honestly 
mistaken. These questions are all founded on 
the belief that a real^ honest mistake j sprink- 
ling, is as good as immersion. If it were pos- 
sible for an intelligent person who may know 
the will of Christ, to make an honest mistake 
at this point, it might be counted for right- 
eousness, for ought we know, but such a thing 
is not possible, seeing the Word of God says 
nothing on the subject of sprinkling for bap- 
tism. If you refuse to be immersed you reject 
the counsel of God against yourself (Luke 
7 :30), and remain out of Christ, for Paul says, 
" we are immersed into Christ '' (Romans 6 :3), 
and are without the promise of pardon, for 
Jesus says, ^^ he that believeth and is immersed 
shall be saved '' (Mark 16 :16). 

I cannot help it because Jesus did not say 
sprinkle. I would have been just as well 



100 WHAT DID JESUS MEAIS^? 

pleased. We are not responsible for what He 
did say, but we will be held accountable if we 
do not do what He says. Remember His 
words, ''Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and 
do not the things that I say?" 




CHAPTER XIV- 

OBJECTIOJN^S Al^SWERED A^ND DIFFICULTIES 
EXPLAINED. 

THE places where immersion was anciently 
administered is a convincing argument 
in its favor. It Avas first performed in 
rivers (Matt. 3:13, Mark 1:5), and where 
there was much water. They went down into 
the water, and came up out of" the water, which 
would be the most unnatural thing, and abso- 
lutely useless, if the water was sprinkled upon 
the person. ^^John was baptizing, immers- 
ing, in Enon near to Salem because there was 
much water there,'' the narrative says. Our 
Pedobaptist friends see the long trains of 
camels and dromedaries of Arabia coming off' 
their long journey, and these thirsty animals 
must have something to drink, and the kind- 
hearted John has pitched his tent in this place 
for their accommodakv^n. If the record so de- 
clared we would have no difficulty in believ- 
ing it. 

They imagine that the benevolent John, who 
always kept a basin of water, and a squirt-gun, 
or a bunch of hyssop, upon his table for the 
purpose of baptizing, immersing, all who came 
to him, was camping here to accommodate the 
animals. 



102 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 

The sacred record says John was immersing 
in Enon because there was much water there, 
and we believe Avhat it says. 

A lady once asked me if I thought Jesus was 
immersed in the Jordan. I told her I did. 
She remarked, '' Our preacher was a mission- 
ary to the Holy Land, and he recently lectured 
on Palestine in this town, and he said the 
waters of the river Jordan run so swiftly that a 
person cannot stand up in the stream." 

The believers in sprinkling seemed to take it 
for granted that the river is rapids, from end 
to end, and from bank to bank. Whether the 
dear preacher purposely deceived the credulous 
people, I do not know, but of one thing I am 
quite sure ; a man who does not know that 
such a statement is utterly false, is too igno- 
rant to be a teacher of the people. Lieut. 
Linch's official report of his survey of the river 
from the Sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea, and 
every traveler to the Holy Land after whom I 
have read, are my authority for the above 
statement. 

Dean Stanley describes a scene that occurs 
at the Jordan every year. He says : 

''Once a year, on Monday in Passion week, the desolation 
of the plain of Jerico is broken by the descent from the 
Judean hills of five, six or eight thousand pilgrims. They 
dismount and set to work to perform their baths; * * 
some plunging in naked, most, however, with white dresses. 
* * Most of the bathers keep within the shelter of the 
bank where the water is about four feet deep." 



DIFFICULTIES EXPLAI^^ED. 103 

Quite recently Dr. Talmage made a trip to 
Palestine. Among other interesting things he 
gives the following account of a baptism in the 
Jordan river : 

''Think how I felt when I reached Jordan after sleeping 
the previous night in the ruins of Joshua's Jerico. Think how 
I felt when a man in our party came and asked me to baptize 
him; he wished to be immersed in the very water where our 
Saviour was baptized. I found the candidate a professing 
Christian and an earnest man and I consented. There was a 
sheik who preceded our caravan, and his robe was just like a 
baptismal robe, and I put it on. We found another white 
robe for the candidate. Then, standing on the shore of the 
Jordan, I read from my Bible the story of the baptism of 
Christ, when the spirit of G-od descended like a dove from 
heaven, and a voice was heard, saying, ' This is my beloved 
in whom I am well loleased.' My daughter wrote out some 
copies of a favorite hymn which we sang at home, and all 
present, friends, pilgrims and strangers, joined in singing it 
. there onJordan's banks. Then we went down into the water 
and under the willows, still green in mid- winter, I baptized a 
Christian. That was the most overwhelming moment of my 
life." 

The Methodist preacher who saw such a 
rushing torrent that a man could not possibly 
be immersed in the stream, and, Dr. Talmage, 
who '^went down into the water'' and im- 
mersed a man, seem not to have looked at the 
Jordan through the same glasses. I turn aside 
to make a single reflection. 

The Dr. says, " I baptized a Christian." If 
a man is a Christian he is one because he has 
been naturalized, and is a citizen of Christ's 
Kingdom. 

Jesus says, '' except a man be born of water 
and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the 
Kingdom of God." Jesus would have the birth 



104 OBJECTIOlSrS ANSWERED. 

of water (immersion) and of the Spirit in order 
to his entering into Christ, or His Kingdom ; 
the modern teacher would have the man im- 
mersed because he is in Christ. If the man 
was a Christian when he was immersed he was 
already in Christ ; into what, then, was he im- 
mersed? Study Romans 6 :3. 

But to resume our purpose. It is argued 
that Philip could not have immersed the 
eunuch because they were in a desert, and 
water sufficient could not be found. The record 
says the eunuch was immersed. Ask any 
Greek scholar to translate the sentence, and 
see if he does not render the word baptizo by 
the word immerse. The man has not yet been 
found who says it should read, '' he sprinkled 
him.'' Besides, it does not say they were in a 
desert, but on the ^Svay that goeth down from 
Jerusalem to Gaza, which is desert," or 
deserted. The deserted Gaza. Gaza had been 
utterly destroyed by Alexander and its magni- 
ficent ruins were literally deserted, and it is 
spoken of by Strabo and other Greek geograph- 
ers, as well as by the sacred writer, as the 
'' deserted Gaza.'' See Prideaux's ConnectionSy 
and Keith on the Prophesies, The fact that they 
^Svent down into the water" is significant. If 
only a drop of water, or at most a cup of water 
was needed, it would not have been necessary 
for the nobleman to have descended from his 
chariot. But how did this man get the idea 



DIFFICULTIES EXPLAINED. 105 

that he ought to be immersed? Had the 
preacher discoursed to him on this subject? 
Luke says, " Philip preached unto him Jesus." 
There is but one answer to tlie inquiry. To 
''preach Jesus/' after the apostolic way, 
includes minute instructions on the subject of 
immersion. The modern preacher who is 
prejudiced against the frequent mention of this 
subject while preaching to sinners has no 
scriptural warrant for his timidity. He 
preaches Jesus correctly, who gives immersion 
the same prominence that was given to it by the 
Apostles. 

Perhaps the reader would be surprised upon 
examination of the Acts of the Apostles, to 
find that immersion always occupied a place 
in the preaching" of inspired men, when they 
were discoursing to sinners. You will find it 
in John's ministry, and Jesus ratified the 
divine ordinance by submitting to it himself. 
In His last words on earth He commanded 
every believer to be immersed, and the Apos- 
tles did not fail, from the beginning to the 
close of their ministry, to reiterate the divine 
proclamation. 

It is urged with no little emphasis that the 
3,000 converts on the day of Pentecost must 
have been sprinkled, as the Apostles could not 
immerse so many in one day. Let us see. 
How much time will it require to immerse a 
person? Hold your watch and count the time 



106 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 

while you walk as you would if going into the 
water, and you will find that in one minute 
you can walk seventy feet, with the greatest 
ease. This would be thirty-five feet into the 
water and thirty-five feet returning. It is very 
seldom one would have to walk so far, to find 
water of sufficient depth. This experiment 
will convince the most skeptical, that one min- 
ute is plenty of time to immerse a person. 
Peter began his sermon at the third hour, or 
nine o'clock. Let him preach three hours if 
you wish, adjourn one hour for dinner, and 
begin immersing the believers at one o'clock. 
They have five hours in which to complete the 
work. If a person can immerse another in one 
minute, how long will it take twelve persons 
to immerse 3,000? Now we have a simple 
problem before us that a mere boy can solve. 

If one Apostle immersed one person in one 
minute he would immerse sixty persons in one 
hour, and twelve Apostles would immerse 
twelve times as many, or 720 persons. If 720 
are immersed in one hour, how long will it 
take to immerse 3,000? As many hours as 720 
are contained in 3,000, which are four and one- 
sixth, or four hours and ten minutes ; or fifty 
minutes before the close of the Jewish day, the 
last candidate would emerge from the v\"ater. 

Thus by actual figures this objection against 
immersion is answered beyond the possibility 
of a doubt. 



DIFFICULTIES EXPLAII^ED. 107 

Another favorable argument of Pedobaptists 
is, the scarcity of water around Jerusalem. 

JN'ot water enough around Jerusalem to 
answer the demands of immersion? 

A ten-year-old lad that would urge such an 
objection, ought to have to stand on one foot, 
and wear the ''dunce cap'' until he would 
recant. Jerusalem was many times besieged. 
Nebuchadnezzar, Alexander, Ptolemy, Titus, 
et. aLj encompassed Jerusalem with their 
mighty armies, and the city was besieged for 
many days at a time. Can an army subsist in 
a country where there is not sufficient water in 
which to immerse a person? The simpleton 
can answer this question correctly. Let us 
make some more figures for the benefit of 
those whose prejudice is so great as to render 
them almost blind. There were a number of 
pools around Jerusalem. Some of them are 
there to-day, and the people use them as they 
did in the days of Solomon. The Upper Gihon 
was 315x208x42 feet deep. Lower Gihon 
592x275x42 feet. Siloam 50x18x19 feet. 
Bethesda 360x130x75 feet. Hezekiah 152 x 
126 feet. These pools were all outside the walls 
of the city, and were public pools. 

By a simple calculation you will find that 
the surface measure of these pools is about 
seven acres. Was there water enough around 
Jerusalem in which to immerse 3,000 people? 



108 DIFFICULTIES EXPLAINED. 

I dare not say no, for fear of being ^^ turned 
out of the church '' for lying. 

But, they say, the enemies of Christ would 
not permit the Christians to use these pools. 
Wrong again, Mr. Pedo, for Luke says (Acts 
2:47) that the disciples were in '' favor with 
all the people." 

An attempt is made to find support for their 
sprinkling business in the case of the Philip- 
pian jailer (Acts 16). Their argument for 
sprinkling depends wholly upon the assump- 
tion that the ceremony was performed in the 
prison. But this, again, is in direct conflict 
with the facts in the case. The prisoners were 
in the inner prison. The commotion that 
transpired awakened the jailer, who, seeing the 
doors open, and supposing his prisoners had 
fled, was about to commit suicide. 

Paul told him not to harm himself. The 
jailer sprang into the inner prison and brought 
them out. They preached to him. He took 
them some place, washed their stripes, and 
was immersed. Then he brought them into 
his housCy a thing he could not have done had 
they not first gone out of the house. 

Where they went while out of the house, the 
historian does not say, only, the jailer took 
them some place where the Apostles' stripes 
could be bathed, and the jailer and his house- 
hold could be immersed. 

The most natural supposition is that they 



OBJECTIOlSrS ANSWERED. 109 

went to the river Gangites, a deep, rapid 
stream that washed the city walls. The 
modern name of the stream is Angista. 

Another favorable stronghold of the 
^^ sprinkler" is household baptisms (immer- 
sions). Bear in mind this fact^ the sacred and 
inspired penman says the households were 
immersed. I cannot see how household im- 
mersions can furnish any argument in favor of 
sprinkling. But our neighbors seem to think 
that in so many households there must have 
been some babies, and of course they would not 
immerse the tender babes. From the time 
sprinkling was invented, and for hundreds of 
years afterwards, the babies were immersed, 
and the Greek Church, one of the strongest 
religious bodies, still observes the ancient, and 
Apostolic form. Count the households in your 
community where every member is old enough 
to be responsible for himself, and you will see 
that a household conversion is no proof of 
sprinkling. Let us take the case of Lydia 
(Acts 16), as this is a favorable resort of the 
Pedobaptist, and look at it minutely, as it may 
apply, in general, to every other case. It is 
assumed that Lydia was, or had been, a mar- 
ried woman ; that she had children ; that one 
or more of her children were infants and 
that her infant children were too young to leave 
at her home in Thyatira, 300 miles from 
Philippi, where she was selling her purples. 



110 MFFICULTIES EXPLAINED. 

Here is a pet theory built upon four clear 
assumptions, not one of which can be strength- 
ened by the shadow of proof. And yet, strange 
to say, this is about as good a thing as our 
friends can present in favor of sprinkling, or 
infant membership. 

Would you buy a patent right of a stranger, 
assuming that it was good? 

Would you buy a piece of land, assuming 
that the title was good? 

But you will pile up assumption on top of 
assumption, and accept it as satisfactory proof 
of a doctrine, or a practice, about which there 
has never been an inspired word spoken or 
written, either by God, Christ, Hoh' Spirit or 
Apostles. 

The conclusion of the whole matter is 
summed up in these words : If sprinkling 
water upon a person is Christian baptism, then 
God has given us the ^vi'ong book, for the Bible 
does not contain one word on the subject. 

Let a person who never heard a word said on 
the subject of baptism, read the New Testa^ 
ment, and he will never get the idea that 
sprinkling is baptism. 

An incident is related that helps to iiatensify 
this thought. 

In the early settlement of Iowa and 
Nebraska, a missionary was traveling up the 
Mississipi, on his way to preach to the 
Indians. 



AN INCIDENT. Ill 

On the boat he fell in company with an 
intelligent Indian, and after some talk, the 
preacher gave the Indian a New Testament, 
requesting him to read it, which the Indian 
promised to do. They separated. Time 
passed, and on a future visit to the same place 
the preacher fell in company with the same 
Indian. 

After friendly greetings and mutual rejoic- 
ing, the Indian remarked: ^^ Indian want 
white man to baptize him.'' This was glad 
news to the preacher, who at once began to 
make preparations for the solemn rite. 

A small table was brought and a bowl of 
water placed thereon. The Indian watched 
the preparation with great and growing inter- 
est. His curiosity being excited beyond con- 
trol, he asked : " What is white man doing?" 
*^I am getting ready to baptize you," was the 
reply. The Indian looked puzzled and re- 
marked : " How is white man going to baptize 
Indian heref'^ ^'1 have the water here, and 
Avill soon be ready/' said the preacher. 

The Indian looked at the minister in blank 
astonishment and remarked: ^^ White man 
can't get Indian in that bowl." ^'Oh," says 
the preacher, ^^I don't have to put you in the 
bowl." ''How, how baptize Indian?" ''I 
will dip my fingers in the water and place a 
little water on your forehead," said the 
preacher. The Indian looked amazed and con- 



112 A LESSOX. 

founded, and taking from his blanket a well 
worn copy of the New Testament, handed it to 
the preacher with the significent remark, 
^ ' w^hite man give Indian wrong book" — ' ' white 
man give Indian wrong book/' The Indian 
had read only the New Testament, and hence 
had only New Testament ideas on the subject. 
And as you cannot get out of a book something 
that is not in it, so the Indian could have no 
idea about sprinkling water, since it is not in 
the book. 

If sprinkling is what Jesus commanded, and 
what the Apostles taught, and what the consti- 
tution of the New Testament requires, the 
preacher did give the Indian the wrong book, 
for the New Testament we have is entirely a 
blank on this subject. 

A very large proportion of the religious 

scholars of the world have been immersed. 

Read a partial list and then learn why : 

*' Moody was immersed by Geo. H. Pentecost while at 
l^orthfleld. B. F. Mills was immersed by a Baptist preacher 
at Northfleld. N. H. Harraman, a wonderful reAivalist 
around Boston, was immersed by S. Hartwell Pratt. Yatman, 
once editor of T?ie Christian City in 'New York City, and the 
greatest Y. M. C. A. evangelist now living, was immersed. 
Munhall, a union worker with Moody, was immersed. Major 
Whittle and Mr. and Mrs. Clark Wilson were immersed. Sam 
Jones was immersed. Henry Yarley, the great English 
evangelist, was immersed. Why were these distinguished 
evangelists baptized by immersion? Their answer is that 
when they gave Bible readings during their revivals and 
studied the Word of God topically they found immersion to 
be the form of baptism practiced by the Apostles. Is it not 
our duty to establish our plea in every city and town in this 



ALL OP 0]^E MIIN^D. 113 

country when the people are wanting it?"''— Christian 
Evangelist, 

And so the lesson teaches us, that if you re- 
ceive your information from God's book, you 
will be correctly informed on all Bible sub- 
jects. 

The educated religious world is of one mind, 
and confess that Jesus was immersed, that He 
commanded believers to be immersed, that the 
Apostles practiced immersion, that the primi- 
tive church practiced immersion up to the days 
of theapostacy, that the whole religious world 
practiced immersion for 1,300 years, and that 
the Greek word baptizo means immerse. All 
agree that if a person is immersed he has 
obeyed his Saviour in this particular. 

Then if all would practice what they preach, 
and reject what they admit is doubtful, the 
vexed and wicked controversy would be forever 
settled, and one of the great barriers in the 
way of the unity of the people of God would be 
torn down. Had King James' translators 
translated the word baptizo there never would 
have been any controversy over sprinkling. 

The Bishops who translated tlie Bishop's 
Bible, palmed off upon the people a cheat, and 
a pious fraud in order to carry out their wicked 
and designing purposes. This they did by 
leaving the word baptizo in the Greek, and 
King James' translators, in obedience to the 
King, followed them. 



1 14 COXCLUSIOX. 

The conclusion of this whole matter is, there 
is no excuse for this sinful controversy. That 
person who contends for what all scholars say 
is right, and Apostolic, and scriptural, is not 
responsible for the contention. He is respon- 
sible, who practices something that has been 
in doubt ever since it was invented, and has 
not a shadow of scriptural authority for its 
existence. 

We attach no undue importance to immer- 
sion. We find it in the Lord's commission to 
His Apostles along with faith and repentance, 
and we leave it there, and simply contend that 
it shall remain where Jesus placed it and that 
the invention of the Mother of Harlots shall 
not take its place. Faith, repentance and im- 
mersion are items in the lav/ of pardon to 
which we are required to give heed in order to 
the remission of sins (Mark 16 :16, Acts 2 :38). 
Is it enough that a man has faith? All well 
informed persons will say no. Is repentance 
sufiicient? Then why is anything added? 
Will it meet the demands of the Law of Par- 
don, if one is immersed? All Bible students 
will say no. What then? 

The law must be fulfilled in every item, or it 
is not obeyed, and the law-giver is under no 
obligations to bestow his promised blessing. 
Would my Pedobaptist friend be willing to 
leave out the item of faith? With emphasis 
he says, ''No, sirT^ Hold, my brother, but 



cojsrcLusiojsr. 115 

don't you leave it out when you sprinkle the 
babe ! Would you leave out repentance? And 
the man says, '^I would not/' Then why 
would you leave out immersion? ^^ Because I 
don't think it essential." But who made you 
a judge of the importance of Divine appoint- 
ments? Besides, if it is not essential, it is non- 
essential ; and what do you think of a being 
who can command a thing to be done that is 
entirely useless? This impeaches the wisdom 
of God, and dethrones Jesus Christ, 

Each item in the Law of Pardon has its 
place, and its work, and cannot be dispensed 
with without wrecking God's righteous plan of 
saving sinners. The office of faith is to purify 
the heart (Acts 15:9), Repentance changes 
the life, as the meaning of the word indicates. 
Immersion changes the state (Romans 6 :3). 
Without faith, then, our hearts would not be 
purified, and hence Ave could not please God 
(Heb. 11 :6). Without repentance we would 
not turn away from our sins, and hence would 
perish in our sins (Luke 13 :3). Without im- 
mersion Ave Avould remain out of Christ, and 
hence could never enjoy any of His promises, 
since all the promises of God are in Christ 
(2 Cor., 1 :20), and Ave could not become '^neAV 
creatures in Christ Jesus" (2 Cor., 5:17). We 
have seen that each item in the '^ LaAV of Par- 
don " has its place by Divine appointment, and 



116 CONCLUSION. 

hence no man can tell which is the most im- 
portant since it is God's Law of Pardon. 

Change the immersion to sprinkling, and it 
ceases to be the law of God, and becomes the 
law of the one who made the change, and God 
is no longer bound by it. Immersion is one of 
God's positive enactments. A positive law is 
the highest test of loyalty. 

There is no reason why you should obey, 
only because the law-giver says so ; and the 
man w^ho will not obey, is a rebel against the 
government of God, and hence unworthy of its 
blessings. But some will say, suppose a man 
cannot see that he is required to be immersed? 
Then he cannot see that he is required to 
believe in Jesus (Acts 16 :31), nor to repent of 
his sins (Acts 2 :38), nor to confess His name 
(Matt. 10:32), for these are just as plainly 
taught as immersion (John 3 :5, Romans 6 :3, 
Col. 2 :12). Such a person will be saved upon 
the score of irresponsibility. But suppose a 
man sees that it is his duty to believe, and 
repent, but cannot see that it is his duty to be 
immersed? The case is not supposable, since 
the same verse that tells him to believe, tells 
him to be baptized (immersed) (Mark 16 :16), 
and the same verse that tells him to repent 
(Acts 2 :38), commands him to be baptized 
(immersed). And so it turns out ^Hhat the 
way is so plain that the way-faring man 
though a fool, need not err therein.'' 



CHAPTER XV. 

DESIGiSr OF IMMERSIOlSr. 

THERE is design in every law of God. The 
system of salvation given us from Heaven 
is a reasonable service, hence there must 
be a reason for every part of it. The fact that 
I cannot understand the reason, and see the. 
connection between the thing commanded and 
the promised result, does not for one moment 
prove that the reason is not a good one. 

The Gospel of the New Testament is a sys- 
tem of redemption. It promises deliverance 
from sin to every subject. It contemplates a 
new man in Christ Jesus. It creates such pos- 
sibilities as to enable poor, sinful man to 
become a new creature, washed, purified, and 
made fit to dwell in the paradise of God. This 
great remedial system has its parts, and every 
part its own peculiar work. 

Faith and repentance cannot be made to 
exchange places. Faith is not holiness, but a 
means to this end. 

Prayer, and a study of God^s book are neces- 
sary to a full growth in Christ. But any one 
of these, to the exclusion of the others, would 
not obtain the desired end. 

So of the positive institutions of the Gospel 
plan. 



lis DESIGX OF IMMERSIOX. 

The Lord's Day, the Lord's Supper and im- 
mersion have their indispensable place in the 
Lord's redemption plan. Immersion is such 
an important part of the Christian system that 
it is spoken of and alluded to more than one 
hundred times in the Xew Testament. That it 
is a divinely appointed institution none can 
question. For what purpose was it designed? 
Let us make our appeal to the Apostles and 
Evangelists of Jesus Christ. What do they 
say about the design of immersion? Let us 
glance at the work of John the Immerser, who 
came to prepare a people for the Lord. 

He preached the " immersion of repentance 
for the remission of sin^.'^ 

Hence it was an intensely interesting sub- 
ject and of infinite importance. 

*' For the remission of sins'' is a simple form 
of expression, easily understood. It was not 
an accident that the Heaven- appointed mes- 
sengers said that immersion was for the remis- 
sion of sins. 

They were commissioned to make just such 
a declaration. 

Immersion was ordained by Heaven, to be 
practiced for the remission of sins, and for no 
other purpose. 

The sacred writer says, "John did immerse 
in the wilderness and preach the immersion of 
repentance for the remission of sins'' (Mark 
1:4): **And John came into all the country 



DESIGN QF IMMEKSIO]S\ 119 

about Jordan preaching the immersion of re- 
pentance for the remission of sins '^ (Luke 
3 :3), As certain as John's immersion was 
" the immersion of repeniance,^^ so certain was it 
''for the remission of sins,^^ 

Let us read the scripture on this subject. 

'' John did immerse, and preach the immer- 
sion of repentance for the remission of sins '' 
(Mark 1 :4). ^^ The people of Judea and Jeru- 
salem were immersed by him in Jordan con- 
fession their sins'' (Mark 1:5). ^^ Preaching 
the immersion of repentance of sins" (Luke 
3 :3). ^' Repent and be immersed every one of 
you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remis- 
sion of sins " (Acts 2 :38). ^^ Arise and be im- 
mersed and wash away thy sins, calling on the 
name of the Lord" (Acts 22 :16). 

In these scriptures the design of immersion 
is as clearly expressed as a thought can be ex- 
pressed by simple words. In Acts 2 :38, above 
quoted, the words ''repent," and ''be im- 
mersed "are tied together by the conjunction 
*' and," hence both are embraced in the same 
command, and look to the same end. Does 
God command man to repent because his sins 
are forgiven, or, in order to their forgiveness? 
To say yes to the first part of the inquiry is to 
say that God can, and will forgive man before 
he repents of his sins. This God cannot do 
without offering a premium upon sin, which 
would be to wreck His moral government. No 



120 DESIGX OF IMMERSIOX. 

more can God forgive the man who will not be 
immersed, since it is an inseparable part of the 
same law by which God saw fit to bind Him- 
self. What did Jesus shed His blood for? Let 
Him tell. 

''For this is my blood of the New Testament 
which is shed for manv for the remission of 
sins'' (Matt. 26:28). 

In Acts 2 :3S Peter commands the people to 
''repent and be immersed for the remission of 
sins.'' Whether the word "for" in this sen- 
tence means because of, or, in order to, can 
easily be determined. In the two passages just 
quoted the word "for"' comes from the same 
word, and is found in the same sentence, so 
that what it means in one sentence it must 
mean in the other. 

Did Jesus shed His blood because the sin of 
the world was forsfiven? Nobody who has any 
clear conception of the Gospel scheme belieyes 
this. The idea is absurd. 

Jesus shed His blood, for or in order to, the 
remission of sin. Hence the expression foi"- 
the remission of sins, means in order to the re- 
mission, or forgiyeness, or pardon of sins. 

As certain as Jesus shed His blood that we 
might be forgiyen, just so certain are we to re- 
pent and be immersed in order that we may be 
forgiyen, and none can escape this conclusion 
without destroying: the force of lancfuasfe. 



DESIGX OF IMMEESIOX. 121 

In Eph. 4 -6 Paul says, '^ There is one Lord, 
one faith, one immersion/' Now as there is 
but one immersion, and the New Testament 
affirms that the immersion practiced by John, 
and by the Apostles stands connected with the 
remission of sins, it follows that Paul's '^ one 
immersion'^ must be for the remission of sins. 

We are not commanded to be immersed for 
faith, for repentance, for adoption, but for the 
remission of sins. 

Not the sin of Adam, not for sins yet to be 
committed, but for past sins. 

Every requirement in the scheme of redemp- 
tion has its own specific design. 

Faith purifies the heart (Acts 15 :9) of unbe- 
lief, repentance will change the life from an 
immoral to a moral life (Matt. 3 :8), and im- 
mersion changes the state (Romans 6:3, Gal. 
3 :27j. 

To change the state is to pass mto a new re- 
lation ; and to be related to a person, or a gov- 
ernment, is something more than a mere senti- 
ment or feeling. 

A man may change his mind in regard to 
the United States, and he may be sorry that 
he is not a citizen thereof, but this does not 
constitute him a citizen. 

There is a clearly stipulated act that he must 
perform before he can enter into citizenship ; 
and this constitutionally provided act is for the 
purpose of changing his relation to this 



122 DESIGN OF IMMERSION. 

country. This it does, and nothing more. So 
in regard to the matter in hand. A man 
changes his mind concerning Jesus and His 
government, and he may have a warm heart 
for the man of Nazareth, but unless a change 
of state takes place, the man never comes 
under the reign of Christ ; he never places 
himself where Jesus says He will meet him, 
and pardon him ; and hence he goes unpar- 
doned, unsaved, unredeemed. 

The promises of God are in Christ (1 Cor., 
1 :20). In Christ we are new creatures (2 Cor., 
5:17). But how do we come into Christ, or 
under His reign, or become a part of His gov- 
ernment? Paul says we are immersed into 
Christ. And as in Christ we are new creatures, 
or anew creation, because the old life is cruci- 
fied with Christ, put to death, blotted out, by 
immersion, we are brought into possession of 
these blessings. 

Many seem to think that immersion is a 
mere bodily act. How thoughtless ! It is an 
act of the mind to which the bodv submits. 

Immersion is not a ceremonial entrance into 
the church, as some erroneously suppose ; but 
a solemn pledge, and formal assurance on the 
part of God that He has forgiven all our trans- 
gressions ; that through faith in Jesus, and a 
repentance that will lead to a reformation of 
life, — by virtue of what Christ has done for us, 
and our acceptance of the same upon the 



DESIGN OF IMMERSIO]N\ 123 

Heaven-ordained terms, we are, in the act of 
immersion, publicly declared forgiven. ^^He 
that believeth and is immersed shall be saved/' 
says Jesus (Mark 16 :16). ''Arise, and be im- 
mersed, and wash away thy sins'' (Acts 22 :16). 
'^ Except a man be born of water" (immersed) 
^^ and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the 
Kingdom of God " (John 3 :5). 

Immersion is an ordinance of wonderful 
meaning and of the most solemn import. It 
is the Gospel in one act, so to speak. It is 
monumental and commeinorative. 

It emphasizes man's redemption in that it 
reminds us of the death, burial and resurrec- 
tion of Jesus for our redemption. 

The man dies to his sins, he is buried in the 
emblematic grave, he is raised up to a new 
life. 

It speaks to us of our death, and of the death 
of Christ. It reminds us of the resurrection 
of the Son of God, and of our resurrection. 

What impropriety, not to say, what an 
abomination, to substitute sprinkling ; an act 
as much unlike the divinely-appointed act as 
the ingenuity of the Mother of Harlots could 
invent. A contrivance of the devil, whereby 
the memory of the death and resurrection of 
Jesus might be blotted out. 

That immersion as taught and practiced by 
the Apostles is for remission of sins, could not 
possibly be more plainly taught. When Peter 



124 DESIGN OF IMMERSION. 

on Pentecost had three thousand penitent in- 
quirers before him, pierced to their hearts with 
a sense of their guilt, and crying out, ^^Men 
and brethren, what must we do to be saved? " 
they were plainly told by an inspired man, 
that, notwithstanding they now believed and 
repented, they must reform and he immersed for 
the remission of sins,^^ 

Faith never made a man a citizen of the 
Kingdom of Heaven ; though it is absolutely 
necessary to that end. The scripture affirms 
that we are justified, or saved by faith, ^^ be- 
cause faith is the principle of action, and, as 
such, the cause of those acts by which such 
blessings are enjoyed. But the principle 
without the action amounts to nothing. It is 
only by the acts which faith prompts us to per- 
form that it becomes the instrument of the 
many blessings ascribed to it in the scriptures. 

Faith is the principle of action ; the act is 
the development of the principle. 

It is not faith, but the acts resulting from, or 
growing out of faith, that changes our state, 
and puts us where God has promised to meet 
us and pardon us. 

Immersion is an act of faith to be performed, 
not because we believe in the water, but be- 
cause we believe in Jesus who commands us to 
be immersed. The immersion of a penitent 
believer is the consummation of his part of the 
work, which, according to the divine arrange- 



DESIGN OF IMMEKSION. 125 

ment, makes him a citizen of the Kingdom of 
God's dear Son. He is now adopted into the 
family of God, is pardoned of all past sins, not 
a sin stands marked against him, and now he 
starts out in this new life, under a new King, 
and a new law, to develop such a character as 
will in the end commend him to the favor of 
God. 

Heaven is a prepared place for a prepared 
people. When one believes with all his heart 
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living 
God, repents of his sins, confesses his faith in 
the Lord Jesus, and in the name of Jesus 
Christ is immersed for the remission of his 
sins, he must at this point begin that prepara- 
tion work so necessary to fit him for the ever- 
lasting Kingdom of our Lord and Saviour 
Jesus Christ. If he shall not begin this pre- 
paration, and continue therein, better that he 
had never begun. 

That immersion, with its scriptural ante- 
cedents, is for the remission or pardon of sins, 
is as clearly set forth in the Apostolic teaching 
as any command in sacred writ. 

God's law of pardon, most graciously ex- 
tended to the sinner, is. Faith in Him who died 
to redeem us, a Repentance that will lead to a 
reformation of life, and Immersion into the 
name of Jesus Christ. God says if we will do 
these things He will forgive us. By this law 
then, God has bound Himself. Some men be- 



126 DESIGN OF IMMERSION. 

come wise above that which is written, and 
they say, God will forgive, though you may do 
something different from what is commanded, 
provided you are honest in your belief. If 
this is what God proposes to do, it is passing 
strange that He did not sum it all up in one 
word, '^ be honest, and I will forgive you/^ 

God had a law of pardon for the Patriarchal 
age, and one for the Jewish age, and now He 
has one for the Christian age, which began on 
the first Pentecost after Jesus arose from the 
dead. 

In time past God required the Jew to offer a 
certain kind of a sacrifice ; it was to be offered 
at a certain place, and at a specified time. 

These items were clearly pointed out in the 
law, and God told them if they would comply 
with His wishes He would forgive them. 

When God said, ' ' offer a lamb without 
blemish,'' could the Jew have been honest in 
offering a lamb that was lame? When God 
said, "bring two turtle doves, or two young 
pigeons," would it have been an honest act of 
worship for a man to have brought one turtle 
dove and one pigeon?'' Is it honest to do 
something that God never commanded and then 
claim the promise? 

This is precisely what the man does who has 
a little water sprinkled on him, and claims he 
has obeyed the divine requirement. 



DESIGN OF IMMERSION. 127 

He has obeyed a human law. And is God 
bound by man's law? Has God promised to 
forgive the sins of any if they will obey the 
Pope, or Calvin, or Wesley, or Campbell? If 
God is bound to respect man's acts simply be- 
cause they are honest, and forgive his sins, 
then every honest religious act that man does 
is a law of pardon to that man, and God's law 
of pardon is supplanted by a thousand and one 
whims and inventions of men. A law giver 
who does not respect and enforce his own law, 
soon loses the respect of his subjects. Con- 
vince me that Jesus does not mean just what 
he says, when He affirms that ' ' he that be- 
lieveth and is immersed shall be saved/' and I 
will be convinced that He was only a man, and 
hence a deceiver. 

The design of every divine requirement is the 
remission of sins. In this, immersion is not 
peculiar. 

Jesus says, ^^ If you die in your sins where I 
am you cannot come.'' 

Obedience to God's law of pardon is rendered 
that our sins may be forgiven. 

As it is so important that we obey God's law 
of pardon, is it not reasonable to suppose, in 
truth, are we not driven to the conclusion, that 
God would frame His law of pardon so that its 
requirements would fall within the range of 
the comprehension of the unlearned? That 
such is a fact the thoughtful cannot deny. The 



128 DESIGX OF im:\iersiox. 

law of God that is addressed to the sinner 
needs no explanation. To say that it does, 
is to say that God has jeopardized onr salvation 
by leaving us in the hands of fallible men. 

The Apostles were inspired that they might, 
with unerring precision and simplicity, pro- 
claim to the world God's plan of saving sinners 
through Jesus the Christ. 

The Acts of Apostles contains a record of 
this inspired and infallible preaching, and 
Peter, in the first sermon, told the people who 
believed in Jesus, to repent and be immersed 
for the remission of sins. 

We read of no explanation being given. 
None was needed. The Apostles made it so 
plain that all could understand the first time 
they heard the Gospel preached. No explana- 
tion is needed now. If one will free his mind 
from all erroneous teaching, and go to the New 
Testament, resolved to do just what it says, he 
will never make a mistake in regard to a single 
duty required of the sinner. Neither will he 
make a mistake in reference to the design. 

I will close the chapter by giving a few 
pointed quotations on this subject. The 
framers of the Westminster Confession of 
Faith under question 165, '' What is baptism?'^ 
quotes John 3 :5 and Titus 3 :5, to prove that 
immersion is a washing with water and a ^^ sign 
of remission of sins.'^ 



DESIGIN' OF IMMERSION. 129 

From the Constitution of the Presbyterian 
Church, published in 1821, pp. 144 and 145 we 
read: 

"Chap. xxviii.—O/ jBop^z^m,— Baptism is a sacrament of 
the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for 
the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible 
church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the cove- 
nant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of 
remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus 
Christ, to walk in newness of life; which sacrament is by 
Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church 
until the end of the world. " 

The Associated Baptists have copied the 

Presbyterians very closely : 

XXU.— Baptism.— B^]^tisiii is an ordinance of the New 
Testament' ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party 
baptized a sign of his' fellowship with him in his death and 
resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remissions of 
sins; and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to 
live and walk in newness of life." 

Here is a little more good Calvinistic 
authority : 

Timothy Dwight, president of Yale College, 
says: 

" To be born of water here means baptism, and in my view 
of it, it is as necessary to our admission into the visible 
Church, as to be born of the Spirit is to our admission into 
the invisible kingdom." And again, "It is to be observed 
that he who understands the authority of this institution, 
and refuses to obey it, will never enter into either the visible 
or the invisible kingdom." 

Dr. Albert Barnes, so justly renowned in 

this country for his learning and candor, in 

his comments on Acts 2 :38, says : 

*' For the remission of sins. Not merely of the sin of cru- 
cifying the Messiah, but of all sins. There is nothing in bap- 
tism itself that can wash away sin. That can only be done 
by the pardoning mercy of God through the atonement of 



130 DESIGN OF IMMERSION. 

Christ. But baptism is expressive of a willingness to be par- 
doned in that way, and is a solemn declaration of our convic- 
tion that there is no other way of remission. He who comes 
to be baptized, comes with ^professed conviction that he is a 
sinner: that there is no other way of mercy but in the gospel; 
and with a professed willingness to comply with the terms of 
salvation and to receive it as it is offered through Jesus 
Christ." 

In August^ 1870, J. B. Briney, of Kentucky, 
wrote to Dr, Barnes, asking for his mature re- 
flections and scholarly criticism respecting Acts 
2 :38, etc. I quote the answer, which suffi- 
ciently explains : 

"Philadelphia, Aug. 18, 1870. 
' Eey, J. B. Briney: 

^' My Bear ^ir : — I receiyed your favor this morning. My 
knowledge of Greeli is very imperfect, and no great value 
should be attached to my opinion on a question of Greek criti- 
cism. But it seems to me the word eis^ in the passage re- 
ferred to (Acts 2:38) relates to the entire previous sentence, 
' Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of 
Jesus Chvi^V—eis—itnto, or in order to, or with reference to— 
the remission of sins, etc. That is, the repentance and baptism 
hotJi have reference to the remission of sins; or the entire p7'o- 
cesSj so to speak:, in the divine arrangement for the remission 
of sins, embraces this, or this is the complete process ap- 
pointed by God in connection with the pardon of sin. 
Whether a man can be saved without baptism is a question 
not connected with the exegesis of this passage; but the de- 
sign of Peter, as I understand it. is to state what is the com- 
plete divine arrangement in order to the forgiveness of sins. 
(Comp Mark 16:160 

*' I regret that 1 have not a copy of the Syriac Bible to an- 
swer your other question. I sold my library, and of the tew 
books that I have, I have no Syriac books among them. 
' ' I am very truly yours, 

"Albert Baristes." 

Dr. Hackett, one of Americans most honored 
scholars, and one of the most eminent com- 
mentators among the Baptists, says of Acts 
2:38: 



DESIGN OF IMMERSION. 131 

''For the remission of sin, we connect naturally with both 
the preceding verbs. This clause states the motive or object 
which should induce them to repent and be baptized. It en- 
forces the entire exhortation, not one part of it to the exclu- 
sion of the other." 

Dr. Philip Schaff, in his History of the 

Christian Church, p. 61, speaking of Peter and 

Pentecost, says : 

^' He at the same time called upon his hearers to repent 
and be baptized in the name of Jesus, as the founder and head 
of the heavenly kingdom, that even they, though they had 
crucified the Lord of Glory, might receive forgiveness of sins 
and the gift of the Holy Ghost, whose wonderful workings 
they saw in the Disciples." 

Central Christian Advocate (Methodist) : 

'^ Repent, — Judgment is convinced; now change the will and 
life. Be haptiztd — with water, according to Mark 16:16. Every 
one of ?/ot^.— Individual act. In the name, — ^ Upon the name' 
— upon the basis of the name as the hope of salvation. Jesus, 
— ' Saviour.' OT^m-j^.— 'Anointed.' Upon the name of ' Jesus ' 
as the 'Christ.' For the remission. — 'Unto'— to this end." 

Morning Star (Freewill Baptist) : 

"'Baptism' is a word taken bodily out of the Greek and 
put into our language. Its original meaning is immersion. 
Immersion ' in the name of Jesus Christ ' here means in ac- 
knowledgment of belief in Him as Jesus the Christ, the 
Messiah of God, They who had crucified Jesus as falsely 
claiming to be Christ, were now told, if they would escape 
from the guilt and judgment of their sin, to declare their 
change of mind to faith and to the acknowledgement of Him 
as the Messiah by receiving His baptism. Immersion ' for 
the remission of sins' denotes the object to be obtained by 
that act. ]S"ot that baptism is forgiveness, not that there is 
any mystical efficacy in the water, but that the act was so re- 
lated to sincerity of belief in Jesus that it stood as a test of 
belief. ^No time was to intervene between repentance and 
baptism, for they could not be known as believers except by 
this act. Unnecessary delay to be baptized, after faith in 
Jesus is cherished, ought not to occur. The relation of a con- 
vert to the community in a Christian land, however, is not 
now much like that of these converts to Judaism. Experi- 
ence, too, has taught the Church to be prudent in this mat- 



132 DESIGN OF IMMERSION. 

ter; only let not custom rather than experience justify our 
variation from Apostolic practice= Eepentance and baptism 
precede the gift of the Holy Spirit as the pledge of Grod's 
favor. This great gift succeeds the remission of sins." 

National Baptist: 

'^Fo7' the remission of sins These words express the end 
and result, both of their repentance and baptism. The remis- 
sion was conditioned on their repentance, with which faith 
was indissolubly connected, and obedience, of which baptism 
formed a part." 

Watchman: 

'* It is to be observed, moreover, that repentance in Peter^s 
exhortation is placed as an obligation prior to baptism, and 
thus we are taught that those, and by implicacion tliose 
only, in whom the change imparted by repentance is wrought, 
are subjects of baptism. Baptismal regeneration can hardly 
be interpreted out of passages that antedate baptism by a 
change of mind in tlie man himself. For the remission of 
sins, the great motive that should lead to the preceding 
acts." 

Timothy Dwight, the greatest Rabbi of 

Presbyterians the New World has produced, 

says : Vol. 4, pp. 300, 301 : '^ To he horn again 

is precisely the same thing as to be born of 

water and the Spirit. '^ '^ To be born of water 

is to be baptized.'' ''He who understanding 

the nature and authority of this institution, 

refuses to be baptized, w^ill is^eyer enter into 

THE VISIBLE NOR INVISIBLE KINGDOM OP GOD.'' 

So affirms the president of Yale. John Wes- 
ley says : '^ By baptism Ave enter into covenant 
vjith God, an everlasting covenant, are admitted 
into the Church, made members of Christ, 
made the children of God. By water as the 
means, the water of baptism, we are regenerated 
or born again. " (Preservative, pp. 146, 150.) 



DESIGI^ OF IMMERSION. 133 

Dr. Whitby, a scholarly Presbyterian, in 
commenting on John 3:5, says, ^^ that our 
Lord here speaks of baptismal regeneration 
the whole Christian Church from its earliest times 
has invariably taught.'' 

We might give hundreds of references from 
the greatest biblical scholars of every age 
showing that we are not advocating a new doc- 
trine when we contend that scriptural immer- 
sion is for the remission of sins. We are con- 
tending for what Jesus and His Apostles 
taught and what nine-tenths of all Chris- 
tendom have always believed, and what the 
ripest scholarship of every age of the Church 
has ever held. 

It so happens that v^e find ourselves sur- 
rounded by a great cloud of illustrious wit- 
nesses in whose company we feel perfectly at 
home. 

The reason these great men all affirm the 
same doctrine is because they have all studied 
the same book, and the proper use of a reason- 
able amount of common sense has enabled 
them to clearly understand the teachings of 
the Holy Spirit on this subject. 

The sum of the whole matter is, the immer- 
sion of a penitent believer in water, in the name 
of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is for the re- 
mission of past sins. No person can come to 
any other conclusion from anything that is 
taught in the New Testament, for the simple 



134 DESIGN OF IMMERSIOX. 

reason that it teaches but one thing concerning 
any one doctrine. 

'' Study to show thyself approved unto God/' 
and may God add His blessing. 



# 



CHAPTER XVI. 

THE EXCEEDING SINFULNESS OF THE 
CONTROVEESY. 

EVER since the fall of man there has been a 
controversy between Truth and False- 
hood, Light and Darkness, Good and 
Evil, and it has been a ^'sinful controversy." 

In every contest both the disputants may be 
wrong ; one of them may be right, but both 
cannot be. 

There is error on one side or the other of 
every debate. The affirmative and the nega- 
tive may be equally honest, still error lies at 
one door or the other. And more or less sin 
is found on one side or the other of every 
moral question. 

There is a sharp conflict to-day between 
right and wrong. The Kingdom of Darkness 
is in hostile array against the Kingdom of 
God's Son. The Devil had a conflict with 
Jesus in the Wilderness, and the battle is still 
on. The controversy was as sinful as the 
Devil himself. Was Jesus at fault? The con- 
flict deepened and multiplied until Jesus and 
multitudes of His followers were put to death. 
Was Jesus and His Disciples the transgressors? 

And must Jesus and His Apostles cease 



136 SI^'FULXE55 OF THE CONTROVERSY. 

preaching the truth, lest there arise a contro- 
versy, and somebody become offended? 

Had this course been pursued all Heaven- 
born truth would have died with the first gen- 
eration. 

Jesus proved to be the greatest disturber that 
the world has ever seen. 

He says, '' I came not to send peace on earth, 
but a sword/' yet He was without sin. To dis- 
turb a man with the truth is no sin. In fact, 
it would be a sin not to so disturb the man. 

Preach against intemperance, and at once 
some one will oppose you. Declaim against 
gambling, and some thief will assail you. Cry 
out in unmistaken terms in favor of the Gos- 
pel of Christ, and some infidel will laugh you 
to scorn. What will you do. Let the intem- 
perate, gambling, Christ-hating people take 
the world, for the sake of having peace with 
them: or will you. like a brave man, take up 
the banner of truth, of purity, of God, and 
float it high over every opposing power? Who 
is responsible for the controversy, the one on 
the right side, or the one on the wrong side? 
Evidently the one who is wrong. Especially 
is this true, when he admits that his opponent 
is right, but continues on in his own way. 

Doubtless some of my readers never thought 
of the exceeding sinfulness of the controversy 
over baptism. That it is a wicked discussion, 
no thoughtful Bible student can doubt for one 



SINFULNESS OF THE COJSTTROVEESY. 137 

moment. /^Why, then/' says one, ^^ did you 
write this book? '' ^^ Are you not afraid of re- 
ceiving just condemnation?/ No more than 
you are for contending that truth is better 
than falsehood. I write tlie book, that the 
reader may see on which side the truth lies, 
and where sin attaches. If you have been an 
attentive reader of the preceding chapters of 
this work, you have learned that those who 
oppose immersion, admit that Jesus taught it, 
and Avas himself immersed. 

You have learned that the scholars the lex- 
icons, the commentaries and the encyclopedias 
without an honorable exception, say that the 
Greek vv^ord baptizo means immerse, and that 
it is certain that immersion was practiced by 
the primitive Church. 

This is a clear admission that the immer- 
sionist is right. Why not then accept and 
practice what they admit to be scriptural, and 
end this vexed controversy that has disturbed 
the peace of God's people for two hundred and 
fifty years, and unsettled the minds of many 
thousands of good people. 

Is it fair or reasonable to ask the one to sur- 
render that you admit is right? 

The man who has truth on his side is com- 
manded of God to cry aloud. Let him obey, 
and God will care for the results. 

Many have said, ^^ Yes, I believe immersion 
is Apostolic, and that it was practiced by the 



138 SliS^FULNESS OF THE CONTROVERSY. 

primitive Church, but I think something else 
will do/' Well, what else? '' I think sprink- 
ling is just as good/' Show it to us in ''The 
Book '' and we will surrender at once. 

Besides, w^hat right have you to '' think '^ a 
divine command out of existence, and ''think'' 
something in its place that God never com- 
manded? 

This is presuming to change the Word of 
God, which is the Law of God. And is the 
Law of the Lord a play-thing that we can 
bandy back and forth as w^e would a toy? This 
trifling with God's word, and making it mean 
anything to suit the whims, and caprices of 
men, has driven thousands of good people into 
infidelity, and made multitudes of people in- 
different to all Church work. 

When such a brain as that of President 
Lincoln, or of Gen. Wallace, author of Ben 
Hut, becomes puzzled over the sinful theolog- 
ical disputes, and stand aloof from the Church, 
it is high time that some one upon the watch- 
tower sound a note of alarm. 

During the war of '61 Mr. Lincoln said in 
his inaugural: "Intelligence, patriotism, 
Christianity and a firm reliance on Him who 
has never yet forsaken this favored land, are 
still competent to adjust in the best way all our 
present difficulty." 



SINFULNESS OF THE CONTROVERSY. 139 

This tells of the faith of this great man. But 
why did he not identify himself with the 
Church ? Let him tell : 

''The conversatioa turned upon religious 
subjects, and Mr. Lincoln made this impres- 
sive remark : ' [ have never united myself to 
any church, because I have found difficulty in 
giving my assent, without mental reservation, 
to the long complicated statements of Christian 
doctrine which characterize their Articles of 
Belief and Confessions of Faith. When any 
church will inscribe over its altar, as its sole 
qualification for membership, the Saviour's con- 
densed statement of the substance of both Law 
and Gospel, ^Thou shalt love the Lord thy 
God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, 
and with all thy mind, and thy neighbor as 
thyself,' that church will I join with all my 
heart and all my soul." 

The mind of this peer among men could be 
content with the simple statements of Jesus, 
and become disgusted with ^ long complicated 
statements ' found in man-made creeds and 
confessions of faith. Mr. Wallace wrestled 
with the same difficulty. He said : 

*^ There are only two articles to my creed, 
and Jesus states them : ' Ye believe in God, 
believe also in me.' I believe in God, and 
Jesus as the Son of God, the revealer of the 
Father. I can accept no creed or church with 
more articles of faith than this. The church, 



140 SIXFULXESS OF THE CONTROVERSY. 

baptism, the Lord's Supper, and all these 
things are proper and right, and may and 
should be obeyed, not as dogmas, but as a3ts 
of loving faitli in the Lord who gave them. ' 

When great men, and profound-thinkers, are 
perplexed over the complicated statements of 
Disciplines and Confessions of Faith, is it any 
wonder that the masses become bewildered, 
lose their bearings, and drift into unknown 
seas? 

Suppose all of the Church people would 
speak where the Bible speaks, and remain 
silent where the Bible is silent. Could there 
be any controversy over Bible facts, command- 
ments or promises? None whatever. Why? 
Because we would all speak the same things, 
just as Christ, the Apostles and the primitive 
Church did. We would speak as the Oracles 
of God speak. 

This would result in the unity of the people 
of God, and this in the conversion of the 
world. Jesus prayed for the unity of His peo- 
ple ; that the world might believe in Him 
(John 17:21). The subject, then, presents 
itself to us as follows, viz. : 

A united Church, a saved world ; a divided 
Church, a lost world. Let us illustrate on a 
small scale. 

I am told that in this town there are sixteen 
saloons. We have eleven churches. If these 
churches w^ere united, and working in har- 



SIJSTFULI^ESS OF THE CONTROVERSY. 141 

mony, as the Holy Spirit directs, the saloons 
would not exist a single day after the expira- 
tion of their permits. 

The saloon is the deadly enemy of the 
Church, and the members of Church are to 
blame for its existence. This is a burning 
shame, without excuse, and without a parallel. 
Unite the people of God and the saloon must 
die. It lives, then, by permission of the 
Church people. Four churches in one ward, 
and at an important election only two votes 
cast for prohibition. 

Just two more votes and Satan would have 
had it solid. If this is not enough to disgust 
thinking men, and cause the Church, as they 
see it, to become a stench in their nostrils, 
pray tell me what is. Go to almost any city, 
town or hamlet in this or any other Christian 
land, unite the people of God upon the Bible 
alone, begin a crusade against sin with God's 
word to guide in all the work, and iniquity 
Avill pale before the blinding light of the Star 
of Bethlehem, sinners will be converted, and 
the Lord will add the saved to the Churck by 
hundreds and by thousands. The people who 
profess to be Christians and the well-disposed, 
law and order people Avho will work with us 
for the accomplishment of a moral revolution, 
hold the balance of power. Why, then, do 
we not drive out the Canaanites and possess 
the land? 



142 SINFULNESS OF THE CONTROVERSY. 

The answer is easy. The people of God, so 
called, are divided among themselves, and 
instead of working as one man for the accom- 
plishment of great ends, they are toiling, night 
and day, to build up their own little sectarian 
party, upon some doctrine, theory or opinion 
that is not so much as mentioned in the Word 
of God. 

The world sees this, and sensible men be- 
come, and are now, thoroughly disgusted with 
this ^' sinful controversy" that divides the peo- 
ple. Many good men are now practically say- 
ing to the religious teachers of to-day, '' settle 
yovir disputes among j^ourselves, and then we 
will listen to you ; divided as you are, and con- 
tending over things about which the Bible says 
not a word, we have no time nor patience to 
hear you." 

Is it any wonder that we have empty pews, 
and poverty-stricken church treasuries, and 
men and women on the broad road to hell? 

Stop preaching to the sinner out of the 
Church, and turn your theological guns upon 
the sinners in the Church, and stop not until 
we have a converted Church, and then, and 
not till then, may we look for a converted 
world. Look at the Heathen and then meas- 
ure the enormity of the sin that hangs over the 
people of the divided Church. What do you 
think of the controversy as we hold it up be- 
fore the Pagan Avorld? Three or four different 



SITTFULlSrESS OF THE CONTROVERSY. 143 

kinds of preachers in one heathen town. A 
bright and educated heathen approaches them 
to receive information, and asks, " Mr. A, 
what do you believe? '^ '' I believe and teach 
that all men will be saved.^' ''Mr. B, what do 
you believe? '' ''I believe and teach that a 
part of the human family will be eternally 
lost." ^'Mr. C, and what do you believe?" 
''Well, sir, I believe and teach that a part of 
the human family was foreordained from the 
foundation of the world to everlasting condem- 
nation, and that the number is so definitely 
fixed that it cannot be increased or dimin- 
ished." "Mr. D, please, sir, can't you agree 
with these brethren of yours, as you both read 
your lessons from the same book?" "I be- 
lieve and teach that a God who could decree a 
man's condemnation before he has done any 
good or evil, is beneath the notice of an intel- 
ligent being." 

A thousand and one other contradictions 
might be presented. Will the Heathen ever 
comprehend such a medley of contradictions? 
Impossible ! As they have remarked, they 
will remark again, and it comes with mighty 
and convincing power, "You men had better 
go home and study your God until you under- 
stand Him alike, before you come here to 
teach us a better way." 

As we study this question the magnitude of 
the sin looms up before us like the Alps. 



144 SINFULNESS OF THE COXTROVERSY. 

Perhaps it is not generally known that when 
Mohammed began his w^ork, it w^as not a new 
or hostile religion ; it was as Mohammed de- 
clared, ^^ the old religion of Abraham, preached 
to the ignorant and idolatrous tribes of Arabia/' 
Arabia was full of Jews and Christians seven 
hundred years before the time of Mohammed. 

The historian Philostorgius tells us ''that in 
342 A. D. an Italian bishop, Theophilus, was 
sent by the emperor Constantius to the King of 
Yemen, and was allow^ed to build three Chris- 
tian churches on the Persian Gulf. The same 
writer speaks of the city of Najran in Yemen 
as the seat of a Christian bishop, and affirms 
that some important tribes had been converted 
there to Christianity. Mohammed's instructors 
were Christians and are said to have read to 
him both the Old and New Testament. The 
Prophet's favorite wife and her near relatives 
were well acquainted w^ith Christian doctrines. 

There can be no doubt that Mohammed was 
acquainted with Christianity. In the Nineteenth 
Century for February, 1894, appears an article 
on Mohammedanism and Christianity hy F. Max 
Muller, in which he says, speaking of Moham- 
med, ^ ' he spoke of the Old and New Testament 
as the Word of God, and he spoke of Jesus in 
even higher terms than Abraham. All he 
wished to do, at first, was to explain much of 
what was hidden in the Book, and to remove 
the false opinions entertained of Christ.'' Rev. 



SINFULNESS OF THE CONTROVERSY. 145 

Marcus Dodds declares that if Mohammed had 
known the true character of Christ, Christian- 
ity would have had one more reformer. 

Why was Mohammed not a Christian? Let 
Muller answer : '^ Unfortunately the form in 
which Christianity reached him was most cor- 
rupt, and offended him by the perverted doc- 
trine of the Trinity. It was the false doctrine 
of the Trinity, as taught at the time, by cer- 
tain Christian sects with whom Mohammed 
had to deal, that most strongly repelled him 
from Christianity.'^ 

In 325 A. D. Constantine called a council of 
three hundred and eighteen Bishops to settle 
the controversy between Alexander and Arius 
over the doctrine of the Trinity. The result 
was, a creed was made, and the Church was di- 
vided. Was it a ^' sinful controversy/' seeing 
the doctrine is not so much as mentioned in 
the Bible ? '' 

We have nothing in this world with which to 
measure the enormity, and the far reaching 
consequences of this sin. 

Mohammed was driven to reject Christianity, 
and who can estimate the loss sustained to 
Christianity in alienating the powerful support 
of Mohammed from the Church of Christ? 

He was turned away from the true faith by a 
wicked controversy over an untaught question. 

The loss is irreparable. The evil consequences 
are immeasureable, since the workisstillgoingon. 



146 SINFULNESS OF THE COXTROVERSY. 

Had it not been for the pernicious doctrines 
of the Trinity, the two religions, Islam and 
Christianity, doubtless would have been one. 
Mohammedanism, with all its corruptions and 
dark crimes, is the legitimate work of sectarian- 
ism, which is the work of Satan. 

A wicked controversy, over the same sub- 
ject, is still being waged. The Trinitarian 
party on the one side, and the Unitarian party 
on the other, and the Bible entirely out of the 
question, for it recognizes neither of them. 
Political partyism in its evil tendencies, is sec- 
ond only to religious partyism. The latter 
binds men to ^' their church^' rather than to 
Christ; the former binds so many professed 
Christians to their dear party, that the Ameri- 
can Saloon is elevated to place and power, and 
enough sanctified votes are cast along with the 
refuse and rif-raf, to elect the man who fur- 
nished the most drinks. 

Blot out the '^ sinful controversy,'' and unite 
the people of God upon one common founda- 
tion. The Word of God, and these things cannot 
exist. All this can be done without the sacri- 
fice of a single righteous principle. 

Then what an ungodly strife ! What an 
unholy warfare ! How fearful the consequences, 
the contemplation of which should cause every 
true Christian to tremble with fear, lest the day 
of God's slumbering vengeance speedily come. 



SINFULNESS OF THE CONTROVERSY. 147 

If this ^'sinful controversy'' was not up, it 
would be little trouble to keep objections down. 

The denominational world needs to be 
taught that denominationalism is the strong- 
est hold the Devil ever had. He must be 
driven out of this strong citadel, or the world 
is lost. How can this be done? Oh! that I 
were inspired that I might answer this ques- 
tion in the burning words of the Holy Spirit. 
Have we a divine example? Let us see. 
When Jesus came to the world He began His 
work with the best people in the world. He 
sent His Apostles to the best people, the Jews, 
The seventy evangelists were sent to the same 
people. On the day of Pentecost the Apostles 
opened the Kingdom to the best people. 
Special messengers were sent to the best peo- 
ple, Saul, Cornelius, Lydia and many honor- 
able women, Crispus and many others. Why 
was this course pursued, since all were out of 
Christ, and hence unsaved? The best people 
were the more easily reached, and when con- 
verted to the Lord, they were the best helpers 
in reaching others. Brethren, hear me ! Our 
work of to-day is to follow these divine exam- 
ples, and preach to the best people ; convince 
them that there is common ground where we 
can all stand without the compromise of a 
single principle. Teach them that denomina- 
tionalism should be forever buried for the sake 
of the unity of the people of God and the con- 
version of the world. 



148 SINFULNESS OF THE COiSTROVERSY. 

Remember, dear reader, that according to 
the Saviour's prayer in John 17, the world will 
not be converted while the Church is divided. 

Then if these various religious bodies are 
honest in their efforts to convert the world, 
and believe that Jesus told the truth, they 
must cease contending with each other, and 
contend for tlie ''common faith," or they 
stand forever self-condemned. A body of peo- 
ple scattered up and down the earth, claiming 
to be the Church and Christ, such as is presented 
to us in the New Testament, yet divided into 
about 1,100 diff*erent and distinct bodies, 
teaching and practicing doctrines and customs 
as unlike each other as day is unlike night, is 
the most contradictory and disgusting spectacle 
that men are called upon to contemplate. 

The enormity of the sin is magnified beyond 
comprehension when we remember that the 
Devil is the author of the controversy. 

He made the attack upon our Saviour 
immediately after His immersion, but to no 
purpose. Enraged over his defeat he planned 
a second attack, and pressed his cause with 
such energy that Jesus was put to death in the 
most cruel manner. 

Doubtless the demons under the dominion 
of Satan held high carnival over what they be- 
lieved to be a victory. But on the morning of 
the third day Jesus arose, a mighty conquorer 



SIJSTFULNESS OF THE CONTROVERSY. 149 

over death, hell and the grave, and gave to the 
world the crowning proof of His divinity. 

The Devil is put to flight the second time. 
A brief rest, and he marshals his hosts for a 
third attack. 

This time he seeks to destroy the '' Kingdom 
of God's dear Son '^ by persecuting the Disci- 
ples, and during the Dark Ages, which lasted 
for 1,260 years, more than 60,000,000 Chris- 
tians were put to death for their faith. 

But the ^' blood of the martyrs was the seed 
of the Church,'' for they were scattered abroad 
by the persecution, and ^Svent everywhere 
preaching the word.'' 

The very means used by Satan to crush out 
the influence of Jesus, was made the instru- 
ment of extending it to all parts of the Roman 
Empire, and Satan suffers a third defeat. 
Driven to desperation over his repeated fail- 
ures, a fourth attack was wisely and systemat- 
ically planned. This time the tactics was to 
divide the Church into warring and contend- 
ing parties and thus prevent the world from 
believing in Jesus, This wicked, persistent, 
and skillfully planned conflict is still going on, 
and sectarianism is unwittingly furnishing the 
Devil with ammunition to carry on the war. 
How long, oh Lord, will the conflict last? 

How long ere thy people will rally around 
the one banner of Prince Immanuel, and end 
this wicked controversy by obliterating all 



15t> SIXiULXESS OF THE COZ^TTROVERSY. 

denominatioDal lines, and as one people, labor- 
ing for one chief end, viz. , the conversion of 
the world, and the glory of God, triumph over 
Satan most gloriously, and hasten the usher- 
ing in of a better day? 

By the unholy strife now going on the 
Church of Christ is robbed of her power to ac- 
complish her mission. The shameful contro- 
versy over questions on which the Bible is 
silent, is heard on every hand, and many, 
heart-sick and confounded, have turned wearily 
away from seeking after God, and have gone 
down to the grave without hope and without 
God in the world. 

This is victory for Satan. 

The blame rests somewhere. The blood of 
thousands cry out from dark and hopeless 
graves against such a glaring contradiction. 
The voice of Jesus is heard above the noise of 
conflict, *' I pray that they all may be one." 
Shall this prayer be answered? How soon? 
The Holy Spirit speaks : , ' * Let there be no 
divisions among you, but be perfectly joined 
together in one heart and one mind.'^ Con- 
summation devoutly to be prayed for ! 

Blessed thought ! 

Oh Lord, quicken Thy people to a realization 
of the fearful responsibilities that rest upon 
them. 

Open their eyes to see the mildew and blight 
that has fallen upon the Church because of her 



SH^^-FULNESS OF THE COISTTROVERSY. 151 

divided ranks, and to behold the black flag of 
Satan's Kingdom waving in triumph over the 
waste places in Zion. 

Move thy people to comprehend the awful 
fact that their present sickly condition, 
brought on by their own sin, makes them re- 
sponsible for much of the sin and iniquity of 
to-day, and for the cold indifl*erence to the 
Lord's cause that is everywhere seen. 

Oh, God ! command thy people to face the 
enemy and let them gaze upon the Mother of 
Harlots and her allies, viz. , the Rum power, the 
Saloon element and the Gambling Hell, all 
marching under the same banner that she car- 
ried in the days of the Inquisition, and cause 
them to realize that the purpose in the mind 
of Satan is victory over Jesus Christ and His 
Church. 

Aid Thy people to see the power of this com- 
bination, and its entire fitness for the work in 
hand, and to see the weakness of the cause of 
Christ because of the wicked controversy 
brought on by denominationalism. 

Remove indiff^erence, and quicken Thy peo- 
ple, — Thy professed followers, — that they may 
see the ^^ sinfulness of the controversy'' that 
renders God's people powerless to do the great 
good that lies before them. 

Powerless to stamp out the popular sins of 
the day. 



152 SIXFULXESS OF THE COXTROVERSY. 

Powerless to convert the world because a 
larger part of the Church needs converting. 

How long, oh Lord 1 how long will these 
thin2:s be? 

Until Thy j^eople repent in sack-cloth and 
ashes. Until they, by a united eflFort, restore 
the Primitive Church in its purity and power. 
Then will the kingdoms of this world become 
the kinaxloms of our Lord and of His Christ. 

*' How iDlest and how joyous will be the glad day. 
"When heart beats to heart hi the work of the Lord; 
When Christians united shall swell the glad lay, 
Divisions all ended, triumphant His word."' 



e:sp 



ALPHABETICAL INDEX. 



Advocate, Christian, 131. 

Aristotle, 38. 

Alford, Dean, 17. 

Amherst College, 20. 

Anthon, Charles, 21-36. 

August i. Dr., 22. 

Apostolic Church, Schaff's,33. 

.^sop's Fables, 40. 

Achilles Tatius, 40. 

Archias, 40. 

Argentine Expedition, 40. 

Allegories, Homeric, 40. 

Ante-lSTicene Fathers, 48, 49. 

Assumption and not proof, 
110. 

American Saloon, 146. 

An Incident, 70. 

Auricular Confession, 83. 

A Crumb of Comfort, 91. 

Blackstone on Interpreta- 
tion, 2„ 

Brown, use of Words, 2. 

Bonner, Bishop, 11. 

Blount, J. H., 19. 

Barclay, 22. 

Brewster, Sir David, 29. 

Basil the Great, 41, 47. 

Bonwetsch, Prof., 45. 

Bishop of Jerusalem, 47. 

Bretschneider, 51. 

Bible History, 55. 

Baptize means dip, 64. 

Baptizo in New Testament, 
65. 

Bapto, 68. 

Baptize a Christian, 103. 

Bethesda, Pool of, 107. 



Baptist, Associated. 129. 

Morning Star, 131. 

" :^rational, 132. 
Flag, 87. 

" usage, 88. 
Barnes, Albert, 129. 
Ben Hur, 138. 
Balance of power, 141. 
Baptisma, 67. 
Baptismos, 68. 
Baptistees, 68. 
Blood of little bird, 71. 
Bishop's Bible, 77. 
Bishop's, Honesty of. 78. 
Bible not read for 1,000 years, 

89. 
Bible printed in Latin, 89. 
Constans, Council of, xiv. 
Cooley, use of Words, 4. 
Coke on law, 6. 
Church of England. 49. 
Church of England must not 

pour, 49. 
Church, Episcopal, 10. 

" Presbyterian, 11. 

" Congregational, 11. 

•' Fathers, 47. 

" Plistory, 19 
Calvin, John, 11, 12, 17. 34. 
Clark, Adam, 16. 35. 
Conybear and Howson, 19. 
Christian Antiquities, 19. 
Campbell, lie v. Geo., 21. 
Chalmers, Bev. Thomas, 22. 
Cornell University. 23. 
Coleman, Lyman. 33. 
Chrysostom', 40. 47, 49. 



Clement, 41. 

Cyclades, Bishop of, 44. 

Cyrill, 47. 

Council of Calchuth. 49. 
" " Revenna, 91. 
" " Trent, 84. 

Commission, meaning of, 6. 

Commission to guide Apos- 
tles. 93. 

Commands, each has its 
place, 115. 

Commands, all alike import- 
ant, 116. 

Creatures, new in Christ, 122. 

Christian Advocate, 131. 

Constantine, 145. 

Controversy, the Devil's, 148. 
" sinfulness of, 135. 

Cyprian, 88. 

Conflict between light and 
darkness, 185. 

Doddridge, Phillip, 16, 35, 36. 

Doelling's Church History, 19. 

Dell. 22. 

D'Ooge, Prof., 23. 

Diodorus, 38. 

Dorpot University, 45. 

Donnegan, 51. 

Dwight. Timothy. 129, 132. 

Dodds, Rev. Marcus, 145. 

Eusebius, IT. 

Encyclopedia, Edinburg, 10, 
12. 27, 29. 

Encyclopedia, Chambers, 27. 
Brande's, 27. 
" Killo's, 27. 

" American, 27. 

Penny, 27. 

Edinburg Reviewers, 28. 

Epictetus, 39. 

Elect Infants. 86. 

Floyer, Sir John, 15. 

Fhigg. Prof., 23. 

Fleet. Prof., 45. 

Figures will not lie, 106. 

Faith, repentance and im- 
mersion the approach to 
Christ. 97. 



Greenleaf. 5. 

Gale. Dr.,' 14. 

Gaston, Bouet-Maury. 20. 

Gratton, 22. 

Greek writers, 37. 

Gregory. 39, 47, 49. 

Greenfield. 51. 

Greek language, change in, 

45. 
God bound by His own law, 

98. 
Gaza, the deserted. 104. 
God not bound by human 

law. 127. 
Gihon, Pool of, 107. 
Gangites river, 109. 
God gave wrong book, did 

He? 110. 
Great evangelists immersed, 

112. 
God's law changed ceases to 

be God's law. 116. 
Gambling hells, 151. 
God Fathers, 83. 
Greeks always have practiced 

immersion, 92. 
Heathen trouble, 143. 
Happy thought. 78. 
Heathenish doctrine, 87. 
Hodge, Dr Charles, 2, 34. 
History, voice of, 14. 
" Mosheims, 16. 
'^ Robinsons, 16. 
Humphreys, Prof.. z3. 
Hibbard. Dr., 25. 
Hippocrates. 39. 
Heliodorus. 39. 
Heimerius, 29. 
Homeric Allegories, 40. 
Hellenistic Institute, 44. 
Hogue, Prof., 45. 
Hippolytus, 48. 
Hermas, 48. 
Heidoricus, 51, 
Honest belief. 98. 
sinners, 99. 
think so does not 

meet the case, 99. 



Hezekiah. Pool of. 109. 
Hacliet, Dr., 130. 
Interpretatioii, Law of, 1. 

Blackstone, 2. 
Immersion of Xing Edward, 

20. 
Immersion of Queen Eliza- 
beth, 20. 
Immersion not ceremonial, 

J 22. 
Immersion, household, 109, 
design of, 117. 
•' enforced by law, 

77. 
Immersion practiced for 1,300 

years, 92. 
Immerse, why not in Bible, 

77. 
Immerse 3,000, 105. 
Immerse one each minute, 

105. 
Iranaeus, 48. 
Impeach God, 115. 
Infants, elect and non-elect. 

87. 
Islam, 146. 
Jenks on law, 8. 
Jewish Babbi, 21. 
Judson, Adoniram, 33. 
Josephus, 38. 
Julian, 40. 

Justin Martyr, 41, 48. 
John of Damascus, 47. 
John's squirt-gun, 101. 
Jordan, can't immerse in it, 

102. 
Jewish washings, 68. 
Jesus, what did He mean, 93. 
Jesus, a disturber, 136. 
Knox, John, 12. 
Kendrick, Francis P, 22. 
Kleeburg, Dr., 21. 
Knapp's Theology, 28. 
Kyriasko, Prof. Diomedes, 43, 

44. 
King James' fourteen rules, 

77. 
Law. Pothier on. 5. 



Lightfoot, Dr.. 12. 

Luther, 16, 32, 34. 

Lane, L. L., 18. 

Langen, Dr. Joseph, 20. 

Liddell & Scott, '^2, 51. 

London Quarterly Keview, 28. 

Lucian, 39. 

Libanus, 40. 

Lexicographers, Voice of, 51. 

Leusden, 51. 

Lydia's household, 109. 

Lincoln's difficulty, 139. 

Lignori, St. Alphonsus, 85. 

Marshall, Chief Justice, 4. 

Mary Bloody, 11. 

Mosheim's Church History, 
16. 

MacKnight, Dr., 17, 36. 

McDiarmed, 23. 

Maimonides, 24. 

Marcellus, 38. 

Moody Immersed, 112. 

Mills, B. Fay, Immersed, 112. 

Morning Star, Baptist, 131. 

Mohammed, 144. 

Mohammed not a Christian, 
115. 

Mother of Harlots, 151. 

Methodist discipline, 83. 

IN'eander, 18. 

Nicholson, Bishop, 35, 

Ts^ah-zah, 69, 97. 

ISTaaman, 69, 97. 

Origin, 49. 

Old Testament Sprinklings, 
55. 

Obey the law in every item. 
114. 

Pothier, on law, 5, 

Presbyterian church, 11. 

Presbyterian clmrch first to 
enjoin sprinkling, 15. 

Presbyterian church consti- 
tution, 129. 

Parliament, 11. 

Pool's Continuator, 28. 

Polybius, 37. 

Porphyry, 39. 



Pindar, 40. 

Plato, 41. 

Pliilo, 41. 

Pasor, Geo., 51. 

Passow, 51. 

Pouring not in New Testa- 
ment, 63. 

Pedobaptist admission is 
strong proof of immersion, 
7, 8. 

Pouring in New Testament, 
G2. 

Philip and the Nobleman, 105. 

Pliilippian Jailer, 108. 

Piiilostorgius, 144. 

Preach to the best people, 147. 

Preaching vs. Practive. 83. 

Pope Julius III, 84. 

Pope Gregory XYI. 85. 

Quarterly Ke view, London, 28. 

Eobinson's History 16. 

Eobinson, 51. 

Eenan, 38. 

Eussian State Consul, 44. 

Eegenerated by water, 132. 

Eum power, 151. 

Eoman Catholic doctrine, 84. 

Sprinkling, material used in, 
ix. 

Sprinkling, design of, x. 

Sprinkling, those who admin- 
ister are not authorize, xi. 

Sprinkling, history of, xiii, 9. 
*' of Novatian, xiii. 

* ' carried by one vote, 

13. 

Sprinkling water not in Bible, 
63. 

Sprinkling, nothing cleansed 
by, 69. 

Sprinkling not in New Testa- 
ment, 73. 

Sprinkling in the name of 
Christ, 75. 

Sprinkling practiced by a 
majority, 91. 

Sprinkling rejected by Cath- 
olics, 92. 



Sprinkle, and pure water not- 
joined in Bible, 64. 
Sprinkle, what for, 61. 
Sprinkle in New Testament, 

61. 
Sprinkle from Greek rantizo, 

65. 
Separation, water of, x. 
Schaff, Philip, 18, 32, 131. 
Smith, Bishop, 19. 
Stanley, Dean, 20. 102. 
Stuart, Prof. Moses, 21. 
Smith's Bible Dictionary, 28. 
Saxonv, Prot. church, 34. 
Strabo, 38. 
Snidas' Lexicon, 39. 
Sophoclese, Prof., 44. 
Stephens, 51. 
Scapula, 51. 
Schrevelius, 51. 
Schleusner, 51. 
Siloam pool, 107. 
Saloons, sixteen, 140. 
Sinner in church, 142. 
Satan-s victory, 150. 
Satan's black flag, 151. 
Seven immersed to one 

sprinkled, 92. 
Trumble, Dr., 18. 
Trenner, Eev., 22. 
Taval, meaning of, 24, 
Tvng, Eev. S. H., 33. 
Themistius, 39. 
Theodorat, 41. 
Timayenis, Prof., 44. 
Talmage, Dr., 103. 
Thinking God's law away, 138, 
Trinitarian, 146. 
Total depravity, 70. 
Transubstantiation, 84. 
University, Harvard, 20. 
Dorpat, 44. 

" State of Mo., 45. 

'' State of Miss., 45. 

• ' Athens, Greece, 45. 

" Vanderbilt, 23. 

Unitarian, 146. 
Varley, Henry, immersed, 112, 



Westminster confessioQ, 87, 

128. 
Westminster assembly, 11, 

12, 15. 
Words, how used, 2. 
Wall, Dr., 15. 

Wesley, John, 15, 16, 3t, 132. 
Welch, Mary, 15. 
Whitby, Daniel, 16, 35. 
Weiss 17. 

Williams* College, 20. 
Whitfield, Geo., 35. 
Walderus, 51. 
Water scarce at Jerusalem, 

107, 



White man gave Indian 

wrong book, 111. 
Whittle, Maj., immersed, 112. 
Wilson, Mrs. Clark, 112. 
Watchman, 1C2. 
Whitbv, Dr., 133. 
War, the DoviPs, 149. 
Washin^js, Jewish, 68. 
What we have learned, 72. * 
Yateman immersed, 112. 
Yankee's metliod, 83. 
Zah-rak, 55. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Sept. 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Dnve 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



v 



